NationStates Jolt Archive

Most current revision (#22): http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14452767&postcount=433

Revisions:

Found below.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14214269&postcount=1
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14227667&postcount=38
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14243711&postcount=47
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14253473&postcount=50
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14260860&postcount=62
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14263755&postcount=74
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14267511&postcount=85
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14292905&postcount=105
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14300727&postcount=144
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14321574&postcount=187
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14321992&postcount=189
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14324030&postcount=204
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14326977&postcount=217
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14331246&postcount=229
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14333598&postcount=233
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14333698&postcount=235
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14339429&postcount=254
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14361464&postcount=300
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14378953&postcount=340
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14424973&postcount=412
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14452767&postcount=433


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Education Act
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Educational | Proposed by: Glen-Rhodes
ACKNOWLEDGING that many member nations lack an organized educational system, either by choice or otherwise,

REALIZING that education promotes economic and social growth,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE 'education' as the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the abilities of reasoning and judgment, and to generally prepare oneself or others for mature life.
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.
DEFINE 'course' an educational program, seminar, or class dedicated to a single curriculum.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by any means deemed appropriate.

III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education:
a) SUCH a standard for primary education shall consist of literature, composition, mathematics, history, and either science or religion, – or both, per article III, section c – that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan, career choice, or creative or lifestyle preference.
b) DEFINING literature as the reading and analyzing of acceptable publications of each separate WA member nation; composition as the systems of writing of the WA member nation; mathematics as the principles of numbers and their relations; history as the series of significant events, documents, and people of the WA member nation; science as the universally accepted laws that govern the universe; and religion as theological theories.
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, to prevent unsubstantiated rejection of science courses.
f) PROHIBITS the teaching of science and religion in the same course.

IV) MANDATE that all WA member nation's make education, as defined under this Act, readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of high-level brain activity.

V) DECLARE that the World Assembly does not have the authority to centralize, or decentralize any WA member nation's educational system.

VI) MANDATE that funding for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, if a WA member nation opts-in. Such funding will be made available to WA member nations under the conditions mentioned in article VI, section a, and section b.
a) Funding is limited to:
i) the procurement of educational supplies, including, but not limited to, textbooks, writing utilities, literature, and technologies;
ii) the construction of educational facilities, specific to primary education.
iii) the retrofitting of existing educational facilities to comply with article IV.
b) Funding is subject to the approval of the World Assembly Education Oversight Committee.

VII) ESTABLISH the World Assembly Education Oversight Committee (EOC). Such a committee shall approve or deny a WA member nation's application for financial aid, provided through the World Assembly General Fund. Any WA member nation may be approved for financial aid, given that they are in compliance with all mandates in articles II, III, and IV.

Co-authored by Wachichi.
This past week, the Ambassador of Wachichi and I have gone through a process of converging our education proposals together in to one new proposal. We have finished sooner than I previously had thought, and are ready to release the first draft of the proposal to the floor, for open debate.

As you can see, the proposal I had written (located here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14065978&postcount=37)) remains largely intact, though heavily amended and revised to include several ideas and clauses from Wachichi's proposal (located here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14062336&postcount=1)). Together, we have gone through the various debates of both proposals, and made the following changes:

Defined 'education'.
Mandated that the burden of cost not be placed on the child's, their parent's, or their guardian's shoulders.
Added 'history' to the required courses.
Added a clause that states that a child's education should be directed towards their future career choice or creative/lifestyle choice.
Mandated that nations must provide education for disabled children.
Limited the World Assembly's authority of (de)centralizing education systems.
Limited the committee's authority to only approving or denying education funding.
Eliminated all "averaging" clauses found in the Universal Education Standards Act.


We had disagreed on one issue that I had opted to leave out of this draft, so that other Ambassadors and Delegates can have a say. The issue is whether or not to extend funding to pay the salaries of education-related employees. Should this be included in the proposal?

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

this sounds intresting

I'm a little confused.

f) PROHIBITS the teaching of science and religion in the same course.

Does this mean that Rutianas would no longer be able to offer our 'Science of Theology' course? It actually fits both the definition of Science and Religion for the resolution and it's a popular class.

Perhaps it should be left up to individual nations to determine whether science and religion should be taught in the same class.

Does this mean that Rutianas would no longer be able to offer our 'Science of Theology' course? It actually fits both the definition of Science and Religion for the resolution and it's a popular class.

Perhaps it should be left up to individual nations to determine whether science and religion should be taught in the same class.

If the course teaches about the sociological impact of religion, for example, then it wouldn't be a problem. However, we (the Ambassador of Wachichi and I) would like to remind all the Ambassadors that this act affects primary education only, and not secondary education (commonly referred to as 'high school').

I'm reluctant to allow nations to determine this issue for themselves. The clause is meant to protect both scientific and religious views. Neither are muted in the favor of another (given that a nation chooses to allow both), when they are not put together. Reading over your arguments from the last proposal, you were concerned about what 'science' would be defined as. We have left out any very specific definition, as I did with the proposal. What has changed, though, is that we have excluded the WAEC, so no 'average standard' is going to affect any WA nation.

I feel that the following amendment ought to suffice, and not detract from the original proposal:

b) DEFINING literature as the reading and analyzing of acceptable publications of each separate WA member nation; composition as the systems of writing of the WA member nation; mathematics as the principles of numbers and their relations; history as the series of significant events, documents, and people of the WA member nation; science as the non-theological, accepted explanation of the universe; and religion as theological theories.

Therefore, though psionics may not be considered a law of the universe, the explanation given by a nation of psionics would be considered science, so long as it not theological. I can imagine few scenarios where a nation would be forced to teach something that they don't agree with, given that they have the choice of choosing religion over science, and vice versa.

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

The Government of the Emperor of Urgench is pleased that the honoured delegations for Glen Rhodes and Wachichi have decided to work together in this field. The results are very promising.

Might we suggest that the wording of Article III part a) could end with " Intellectual developement " instead of " creative or lifestyle preference " ?

yours sincerely,

The Government of the Emperor of Urgench is pleased that the honoured delegations for Glen Rhodes and Wachichi have decided to work together in this field. The results are very promising.

Might we suggest that the wording of Article III part a) could end with " Intellectual developement " instead of " creative or lifestyle preference " ?

yours sincerely,
Could you explain your reasoning behind this? To be quite honest, I wouldn't terribly mind if "creative or lifestyle preference" be replaced. But, what is the difference, to you, between "individual education plan" and "intellectual development"?

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

Could you explain your reasoning behind this? To be quite honest, I wouldn't terribly mind if "creative or lifestyle preference" be replaced. But, what is the difference, to you, between "individual education plan" and "intellectual development"?

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


An education plan even if auto-generated may be organised towards a specific goal, such as the passing of examinations or transitioning from one stage of learning to another. This may be perfectly acceptable in certain systems of education and we have no objection to it.

The merit of our suggested wording is that it encapsulates the meaning of the current wording and incorporates a more general principle that education should aid a child in it's overall development of intelligent consciousness in line with their own abilities, desires and rate of assimilation of knowledge.

Secondarily this wording makes it possible for the teaching of children with learning disabilities to take place without imposing a structure of education, designed for more general application, being imposed on them which may impede their actual learning, while insuring that their actual educational development is still proactively achieved.

We hope this explains our suggestion honoured Ambassador.

Yours sincerely.

If the course teaches about the sociological impact of religion, for example, then it wouldn't be a problem. However, we (the Ambassador of Wachichi and I) would like to remind all the Ambassadors that this act affects primary education only, and not secondary education (commonly referred to as 'high school').

That's precisely what it teaches. Thank you. This is also an elementary class that is taken.

Therefore, though psionics may not be considered a law of the universe, the explanation given by a nation of psionics would be considered science, so long as it not theological. I can imagine few scenarios where a nation would be forced to teach something that they don't agree with, given that they have the choice of choosing religion over science, and vice versa.

This one becomes an issue for us. Almost all of our people have psionic abilities. We do view them as being gifts from the gods. Correct me if I'm wrong in my thinking. The schools would have to leave the theological aspect of our beliefs out of it and go to the practical use only in our classes. The theological aspect can't enter into it, even though psionics for us is part of our religion. Yes, this is something that is taught from the beginning of our primary education.

Perhaps the wording for science should be tweaked a bit to allow for nations who view things in a theological sense that others might view as pure scientific?

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

ambassador and co-author from Glen-Rhodes,

i would like to reinstate my stance that the World Assembly Education Oversight Committee(formed in the proposal) should be able to fund teacher salaries for nations who the committee determines needs funding by the WA General fund. Teacher salary is a large part of the school costs especially in larger nations.

poorer nations won't be able to pay the salaries especially nations in recessions and with limited funding. We must include teacher salaries. thank you

Wachichi

We hope this explains our suggestion honoured Ambassador.
It certainly does, Ambassador. I'm glad that we've been able to reach common ground on an education act, after four months of debating. Given this explanation, I agree that the clause should read:
a) SUCH a standard for primary education shall consist of literature, composition, mathematics, history, and either science or religion, – or both, per article III, section c – that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan, career choice, or intellectual development.

This one becomes an issue for us. Almost all of our people have psionic abilities. We do view them as being gifts from the gods. Correct me if I'm wrong in my thinking. The schools would have to leave the theological aspect of our beliefs out of it and go to the practical use only in our classes. The theological aspect can't enter into it, even though psionics for us is part of our religion. Yes, this is something that is taught from the beginning of our primary education.

Perhaps the wording for science should be tweaked a bit to allow for nations who view things in a theological sense that others might view as pure scientific?

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador
Ambassador Jenner, I understand your predicament here. However, the current draft of the proposal allows the right of Rutianas to teach both the scientific and religious aspects of psionics. It only mandates that the two cannot be taught in the same course.

ambassador and co-author from Glen-Rhodes,

i would like to reinstate my stance that the World Assembly Education Oversight Committee(formed in the proposal) should be able to fund teacher salaries for nations who the committee determines needs funding by the WA General fund. Teacher salary is a large part of the school costs especially in larger nations.

poorer nations won't be able to pay the salaries especially nations in recessions and with limited funding. We must include teacher salaries. thank you

Wachichi
Ambassador, I am still slightly weary of including teacher salaries in this proposal. The funding that the EOC permits is virtually limitless, so there are plenty of opportunities to abuse the fact that the World Assembly General Fund does not provide extensive oversight for outrageous spending. To ensure that the funding is not abused, this proposal would have to cap the salaries of educators, which I do not believe would be supported by participating nations. However, should third-parties express interest in extending the funding clause, then reconsideration is likely.

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

ambassador and co-author from Glen-Rhodes,

i would like to reinstate my stance that the World Assembly Education Oversight Committee(formed in the proposal) should be able to fund teacher salaries for nations who the committee determines needs funding by the WA General fund. Teacher salary is a large part of the school costs especially in larger nations.

poorer nations won't be able to pay the salaries especially nations in recessions and with limited funding. We must include teacher salaries. thank you

Wachichi


We completely agree that a major cause of poor education may be underfunded and poorly trained Teaching staff, but should the w.a. really be in the business of actively paying the wages of its member nation's public servants ?

We would imagine this might face fierce opposition in some quarters. We might even support such opposition.

It would be better, in our opinion honoured Ambassador, if the w.a. funded the upgrading of its member states overall education systems which would free up member government's funds to pay their teachers appropriate wages and train them properly. In the long term the w.a. should require that it's members maintain the hardware so to speak which the w.a. has helped it produce and require these states to keep their side of the bargain and properly fund their own teachers or software so to speak.


Yours sincerely,

Ambassador Jenner, I understand your predicament here. However, the current draft of the proposal allows the right of Rutianas to teach both the scientific and religious aspects of psionics. It only mandates that the two cannot be taught in the same course.

Which does tend to be a problem for us. If you saw our current curriculum, we have no more space for such a theological class to exist. However, I suppose we can place it with our current Theological and Philosophical studies.

That said, I do understand why you would want wording in there for it, but honestly, it does create a lot of issue. Not just with my people, I'm sure. Until this is dealt with satisfactorily, I cannot vote for this. I cannot even endorse it. To force people who view something that they have seen from a theological standpoint for centuries to suddenly view it as hard cold scientific fact is not something I can even begin to condone.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Which does tend to be a problem for us. If you saw our current curriculum, we have no more space for such a theological class to exist. However, I suppose we can place it with our current Theological and Philosophical studies.

That said, I do understand why you would want wording in there for it, but honestly, it does create a lot of issue. Not just with my people, I'm sure. Until this is dealt with satisfactorily, I cannot vote for this. I cannot even endorse it. To force people who view something that they have seen from a theological standpoint for centuries to suddenly view it as hard cold scientific fact is not something I can even begin to condone.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador
There is no reason for you to condone it, and this act does not force anybody to give up their religious beliefs. If Rutianas elects to teach their theories about psionics from a religious standpoint, then they may. If they choose to teach it from a scientific standpoint, then they may. If they choose to teach both viewpoints separately, then they may.

If you would like it worded differently, then propose a revision here and perhaps I will reconsider. However, since I do not believe a revision is needed, I cannot propose a revision myself, that supports your thoughts.

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

Might we suggest that the wording of this resolution could be changed to simply state that " Science and Religious belief should not be taught as mutually exclusive of each other" ?

Yours sincerely,

If that would enable us to hold one class for psionic studies rather than try to split them up, it would be agreeable. There's only so much time in a day for education. We pride ourselves on our education system. Our children are capable of advanced mathematics and advanced sciences by the age of twelve. Most are fully fluent in our three official languages by that time as well. With the classes that we throw at them, there's no more time for any other classes in which to teach our religious beliefs on psionics. Granted, we do have the issue with some students who do not believe our major religion. Those students may opt for a different psionics course which does aim at the more scientific viewpoint. It's the way we've done it for years, and it works.

Hmm, that might be a compromise. That theology and science may be taught in the same class, with an optional class for those who do not wish to be taught the theological aspect. Of course, the parents or guardians would have to request the class change. Still the same curriculum, just without the theological view.

Would this be agreeable?

If that would enable us to hold one class for psionic studies rather than try to split them up, it would be agreeable. There's only so much time in a day for education. We pride ourselves on our education system. Our children are capable of advanced mathematics and advanced sciences by the age of twelve. Most are fully fluent in our three official languages by that time as well. With the classes that we throw at them, there's no more time for any other classes in which to teach our religious beliefs on psionics. Granted, we do have the issue with some students who do not believe our major religion. Those students may opt for a different psionics course which does aim at the more scientific viewpoint. It's the way we've done it for years, and it works.

Hmm, that might be a compromise. That theology and science may be taught in the same class, with an optional class for those who do not wish to be taught the theological aspect. Of course, the parents or guardians would have to request the class change. Still the same curriculum, just without the theological view.

Would this be agreeable?
While I disagree with religious and science being meshed, I'm prepared to change the wording to allow a hybrid class, given that the nation provides a clearly scientific alternative and a clearly religious alternative.

f) PROHIBITS the teaching of science and religion in the same course, unless a scientific alternative course and a religious alternative course are given.


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

While I disagree with religious and science being meshed, I'm prepared to change the wording to allow a hybrid class, given that the nation provides a clearly scientific alternative and a clearly religious alternative.

The people of Rutianas thank you and our Emperor sends his gratitude at the alteration. We are now prepared to support this resolution.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

when considering teacher's wages, we have to keep in mind that this act, is here to at least impose a bare minimum. how can we put up such standards if teachers are paid? i'm trying to consider all the poorer nations. and we wouldn't be paying all public servants. the Committee established in this proposal will have to decide which nations would get the money. we can't restrict the funding to just the materialistic things such as infrastructure, materials...etc (all of which could cost a huge amount).

the teacher's wage, is simply to gurantee to those poorer nations with bad economies and corrupt governments that the schools could go on and the children can get their education regardless of what happens to the government or country! to say that that would be an abuse of spending, or overspending (with all due respect)is ridiculous.

i could argue that infrastructure spending can easily be amused. a nation could as for milions of dollars in educational funding (and if the committee approves that the nation can get the money) the money could be used to build huge football fields and other things that may not be so useful in an educational environment.

we have to prove teacher wages in the funding for the poorer countries, otherwise, once their economies go downward, they won't have an educated populace to lift it back up because their won't be any teachers. i would advise my partner and others to reconsider.

Wachichi

when considering teacher's wages, we have to keep in mind that this act, is here to at least impose a bare minimum. how can we put up such standards if teachers are paid? i'm trying to consider all the poorer nations. and we wouldn't be paying all public servants. the Committee established in this proposal will have to decide which nations would get the money. we can't restrict the funding to just the materialistic things such as infrastructure, materials...etc (all of which could cost a huge amount).

the teacher's wage, is simply to gurantee to those poorer nations with bad economies and corrupt governments that the schools could go on and the children can get their education regardless of what happens to the government or country! to say that that would be an abuse of spending, or overspending (with all due respect)is ridiculous.

i could argue that infrastructure spending can easily be amused. a nation could as for milions of dollars in educational funding (and if the committee approves that the nation can get the money) the money could be used to build huge football fields and other things that may not be so useful in an educational environment.

we have to prove teacher wages in the funding for the poorer countries, otherwise, once their economies go downward, they won't have an educated populace to lift it back up because their won't be any teachers. i would advise my partner and others to reconsider.

Wachichi


Since many of the points addressed in this contribution seem to be from our earlier contribution we will try to respond to them.

If you remember honoured Ambassador our suggestion to you during the drafting phase of your original resolution ( and for that matter we suggested the same to the respected Ambassador for Glen Rhodes during drafting of their previous bill also ) , it was that this resolution should directly require adequate funding of education ( and therefore of teaching salaries ) on the part of member states before it required these states to meet minimum standards.

Even corrupt and relatively poor states, except in very extreme and rare circumstances, would in fact have the wherewithal to pay for a teaching profession's wages. Unless one requires them in law to readdress their spending priorities in favour of policies which actually benefit their people then they can never hope to meet any minimum standards in any area of public provision.

We could see the point in providing states with subsidy payments to supplement their wage costs for a limited period of time but without any legal impetus to spend wisely and in the interest of their people why would these states do anything but seek subsidy from the international community indefinitely ?

I don't suppose that those who wrote the W.A. funding statute envisaged it being used to create an international "welfare state" in which complacently corrupt states could fund themselves at the expense of the generality of the W.A.

By all means fund the physical structure, training and other initial outlays which a state may not be able to immediately meet itself on the passing of this bill. Perhaps even subsidise the wage bill of teaching staff for a specific term. But all this must be done with a specific requirement for states to re-configure their budgetary priorities in favour of education and those who work in it. Where a state does not directly pay for government services from taxation it must be required to find sources of funding adequate to the task asked of them.

How much of the w.a.'s actual budget would be consumed in the sort of pay scheme the honoured Ambassador for Wachichi is talking about on a long term basis? Does the honoured Ambassador have a detailed breakdown of such figures which they are prepared to convince this organisation it should assent to?

We imagine many states will oppose this resolution if it includes uncosted plans to pay millions of teachers on an indefinite basis.

Yours sincerely

(OOC: crap. I did a huge long point-by-point on this in a generally encouraging style. Jolt ate it. I really don't have the energy to regenerate it in all its glory, so this is going to be a lot shorter and less nice. Please feel free to assume it's That Time Of The Month or something, and Cerys is just in a generally bad mood. Which isn't that different from normal, but she was supposed to be trying to be more positive for this one).

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.
Sorry, but this is too obviously artificial. I know what you're doing with it, and "age of consent" is an inconsistent enough concept to make it more or less workable, but it leaves me feeling slimy.

DEFINE 'course' an educational program, seminar, or class dedicated to a single curriculum.
This isn't good if (like Gobbannium) you take a holistic approach to primary education that deliberately blurs the lines between subjects.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by any means deemed appropriate.
Brave call, Minister. Er, Ambassador. Also it's hard to make it consistent with VI. More later.

III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education:
a) SUCH a standard for primary education shall consist of literature, composition, mathematics, history, and either science or religion, – or both, per article III, section c – that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan, career choice, or creative or lifestyle preference.
b) DEFINING literature as the reading and analyzing of acceptable publications of each separate WA member nation; composition as the systems of writing of the WA member nation; mathematics as the principles of numbers and their relations; history as the series of significant events, documents, and people of the WA member nation; science as the universally accepted laws that govern the universe; and religion as theological theories.
Career choice? At primary level? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves here?

I really don't like the definitions. Most of them would be more appropriate to secondary education, if you don't mind them being over-simplified or weird. It's odd that you mandate literary criticism but not reading, and composition but not writing. Oh, and mathematics but not arithmetic.

The science and/or religion thing is odd too, as if they were mutually antagonistic.

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.
You mean "...substitute religious teaching for such courses..." I think. I don't like the condition, since frankly it doesn't seem very consistent. Also, how does this fit with III, which already allows us not to have science?

e) PROHIBITS WA member nations from substituting science courses for religious courses, if the member nation does not have a state-sponsored religion, to prevent unsubstantiated rejection of science courses.
I'm an atheist, so you know what my reaction to this is going to be. I really should be gritting my teeth and insisting that both an mandatory, but I'm not in the mood. Besides, this is flat out in contradiction to III, which allows us to drop religion if we feel like it.

f) PROHIBITS the teaching of science and religion in the same course.
The grove-sponsored schools aren't going to like this. The line between bits of Strict Druidism and ecological science gets fuzzy, according to them.

IV) MANDATE that all WA member nation's make education, as defined under this Act, readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of high-level brain activity.
There's a grocers' apostrophe here; apart from that, this gets an enthusiastic thumbs up.

VI) MANDATE that funding for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, if a WA member nation opts-in. Such funding will be made available to WA member nations under the conditions mentioned in article VI, section a, and section b.
a) Funding is limited to:
i) the procurement of educational supplies, including, but not limited to, textbooks, writing utilities, literature, and technologies;
ii) the construction of educational facilities, specific to primary education.
iii) the retrofitting of existing educational facilities to comply with article IV.
b) Funding is subject to the approval of the World Assembly Education Oversight Committee.

VII) ESTABLISH the World Assembly Education Oversight Committee (EOC). Such a committee shall approve or deny a WA member nation's application for financial aid, provided through the World Assembly General Fund. Any WA member nation may be approved for financial aid, given that they are in compliance with all mandates in articles II, III, and IV.
This is wildly unclear. Section II firmly makes it the responsibility of the nation to finance education. The only way I can square it with this is if the funding here is an aid package, which is implied but not really stated. I'm very much not clear as to what criteria the EOC is supposed to be using, since compliance with II, III and IV is mandatory.


Overall, pretty decent. Not quite ready for prime time, but gets major plus marks for not being riddled with grammatical howlers as education proposals traditionally are.

The bad news is that by my rough count, this is more than 600 characters over the size limit.

I'm a little confused.



Does this mean that Rutianas would no longer be able to offer our 'Science of Theology' course? It actually fits both the definition of Science and Religion for the resolution and it's a popular class.

Perhaps it should be left up to individual nations to determine whether science and religion should be taught in the same class.

You know, it's situations like this that strengthen my belief that curriculum decisions should not be made at the international level.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

One of the best takes on the idea I've seen for sometime; although my concerns echo those of the Gobbannaen delegate. One has to bear in mind that this is for primary kiddies, and that, when it comes to international legislation, less is more. I'd favour a more "three R's" basic approach to the subject, rather then asking six year olds to get involved in theological debates or analyse Jane Austin novels

"II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by any means deemed appropriate."

Would this not create in some nations an instant underclass, educated enough to be of "use" yet excluded from further education due to (possibly deliberate) financial barriers? Why only primary education? Yes, yes, some nations may have no free education whatsoever and free education is a huge bonus in that situation, but the abuse potential for a "slave" underclass is enormous - edumacated enough to exploit, ignorant enough to be kept down.

Sorry, but this is too obviously artificial. I know what you're doing with it, and "age of consent" is an inconsistent enough concept to make it more or less workable, but it leaves me feeling slimy.The definitions for 'child' and 'childhood' are carried over from my previous proposal. In which, they were suggested, to eliminate the argument that I'm trying to invade a nation's customs by setting "arbitrary age limits", I think it was called. Since this is the World Assembly, meaning that the said argument is 95% likely to come up, I feel better leaving those definitions in. I have not made them a precedent for future proposals, which is somewhat of a consolation prize. It's amazing how many times I came across the opportunity to permanently define things like 'childhood', 'religion', and 'science'.

This isn't good if (like Gobbannium) you take a holistic approach to primary education that deliberately blurs the lines between subjects.
Precisely what I wish to prevent, in the case of theology and science. Although, it probably could be done anyways, without defining 'course' (which, I admit, is rather arbitrary).
Career choice? At primary level? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves here?Direct that question to the Ambassador of Urgench, Ambassador. It was his comments that led me to include these outcomes.
I really don't like the definitions. Most of them would be more appropriate to secondary education, if you don't mind them being over-simplified or weird. It's odd that you mandate literary criticism but not reading, and composition but not writing. Oh, and mathematics but not arithmetic.
I don't believe that, in order to create a primary education standard, we have to write like primary grade students. As for the oddities that you claim exist: 'literature' is already defined as 'reading', 'composition' is synonymous with 'writing', and 'arithmetic' is a branch of mathematics. The definitions are left in a broadly written form, so that the World Assembly isn't forcing a strongly defined curriculum, and at the same time isn't limiting what can be taught. If a nation teaches its primary students how to analyze -- as the Ambassador of Cobdenia pointed -- 'Jane Austen' novels, or if they just teach them how to write their alphabet, then it is their choice. This proposal is not interested in mandating an intellect average; if you wanted it to, then you should have vocalized support of my other proposal.
You mean "...substitute religious teaching for such courses..." I think. I don't like the condition, since frankly it doesn't seem very consistent. Also, how does this fit with III, which already allows us not to have science?
I'm an atheist, so you know what my reaction to this is going to be. I really should be gritting my teeth and insisting that both an mandatory, but I'm not in the mood. Besides, this is flat out in contradiction to III, which allows us to drop religion if we feel like it.
Thank you for pointing to my error in syntax. I'll be sure to correct it.

While article III is confusing, it is not at all contradictory. Sections e and f are conditionals of section d. Under section d, a nation can replace a science course with a religious course, under the condition that the nation has a state-sponsored religion, and under the condition that they are not taught in the same class, unless two alternative courses are given. Bear with me, but the following pseudo-code is the best way that I can provide visual aid:
if nation replaces science with religion
if nation has state-sponsored religion
if science and religion are not taught together
or there is science class, a religious class, and a hybrid clas
then: allow
else: prohibit

This is wildly unclear. Section II firmly makes it the responsibility of the nation to finance education. The only way I can square it with this is if the funding here is an aid package, which is implied but not really stated. I'm very much not clear as to what criteria the EOC is supposed to be using, since compliance with II, III and IV is mandatory."...by any means deemed appropriate". This would include a financial aid package from the EOC. Though, I see how the aid requirements are contradictory with Article II. The requirement, for first-time applicants, is that they are not charging a tax, or anything similar, for public school attendance. I could reword it to include a conditional statement, or I could reword the requirements to something along the line of: "...in compliance with all mandates in this resolution."

The bad news is that by my rough count, this is more than 600 characters over the size limit.Hm. This is definitely a problem, as the current, unamended version is 4100 characters. I plan on cutting arbitrary definitions out, which will free up some characters. I could take out Article V, if nobody has a problem with that, and the preamble, which will bring the unamended character count to 3636. However, that's still too high (assuming the amendments/revisions will add ~50 characters). Though, the character limit is approx. 3500, which makes me wonder how big a buffer zone that "approx." is.


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

Direct that question to the Ambassador of Urgench, Ambassador. It was his comments that led me to include these outcomes.



As the honoured Ambassador knows very well we never suggested to them that "career" outcomes should be included in any education resolution. We suggested that outcomes in general were equal in importance to meeting standardised minimum achievement targets.

On this draft being produced we offered an alternative wording to the clause in question ( which the honoured Ambassador for Glen Rhodes assured us they would include in the final draft ) which would make no mention of "career" outcomes but would instead require member states to insure that the education being offered to their children was at least partly focused on "intellectual development".

Honoured and respected Ambassador Coch's question is therefore still best answered by the respected Ambassador for Glen Rhodes who has completely misunderstood any advice we offered them and included provisions in a resolution on primary education which are entirely inappropriate and which were not in any way our suggestion.

The honoured Ambassador for Glen Rhodes would do well to remember that decency requires those proposing legislation here to stand over their own work and not blame their mistakes on others who may have been involved in trying to improve or help their work.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Since many of the points addressed in this contribution seem to be from our earlier contribution we will try to respond to them.

If you remember honoured Ambassador our suggestion to you during the drafting phase of your original resolution ( and for that matter we suggested the same to the respected Ambassador for Glen Rhodes during drafting of their previous bill also ) , it was that this resolution should directly require adequate funding of education ( and therefore of teaching salaries ) on the part of member states before it required these states to meet minimum standards.

Even corrupt and relatively poor states, except in very extreme and rare circumstances, would in fact have the wherewithal to pay for a teaching profession's wages. Unless one requires them in law to readdress their spending priorities in favour of policies which actually benefit their people then they can never hope to meet any minimum standards in any area of public provision.

We could see the point in providing states with subsidy payments to supplement their wage costs for a limited period of time but without any legal impetus to spend wisely and in the interest of their people why would these states do anything but seek subsidy from the international community indefinitely ?

I don't suppose that those who wrote the W.A. funding statute envisaged it being used to create an international "welfare state" in which complacently corrupt states could fund themselves at the expense of the generality of the W.A.

By all means fund the physical structure, training and other initial outlays which a state may not be able to immediately meet itself on the passing of this bill. Perhaps even subsidise the wage bill of teaching staff for a specific term. But all this must be done with a specific requirement for states to re-configure their budgetary priorities in favour of education and those who work in it. Where a state does not directly pay for government services from taxation it must be required to find sources of funding adequate to the task asked of them.

How much of the w.a.'s actual budget would be consumed in the sort of pay scheme the honoured Ambassador for Wachichi is talking about on a long term basis? Does the honoured Ambassador have a detailed breakdown of such figures which they are prepared to convince this organisation it should assent to?

We imagine many states will oppose this resolution if it includes uncosted plans to pay millions of teachers on an indefinite basis.

Yours sincerely


i understand stand your concern on over spending, and you have brought up the fears of such a circumstance to my eyes. I now see that we can't just endlessly pay for teacher salaries. it should be during a finite time period. In that period in which the WA General Fund is using up it's money to pay for the teachers, lets say maybe, 6 months? the nation and/or government would be expected to make the necessary changes in order to adopt (after 6 months) the payment of their public servants.

i think this time limit would be sufficient, however, we should also allow for extentions of that time limit, should the Committee approve in those rare and unlikely circumstances. maybe a maximum of 3 month extension? what about such a inclusion on the limits to funding teacher's pay? any objections?

Wachichi

on making the proposal shorter, may i suggest a few tweeks.

1. i don't think it's necessary to define "standard" as every person knows what it is, seeing that it's been used countless times in former legislation.

2. defining course, is also unnecessary, i believe in relation to schooling, education would be sufficient enough and course is unnecessary.

3. Also in clause VI i, you don't have to name examples. it could save space by taking the examples of.

4. and i think we could save some space in article III parts d,e, and f. but that has to go into more debate.


on the science and religion teaching. why shouldn't a non-religious country be able to provide religious classes while banishing scientific ones? should only religious governments be able to do so but the governments who don't prance around with religion on their foreheads, are not allowed that choice? i think any nation should be able to teach religion, science or both in the same class. No matter their form of government! the WA shouldn't be going into too much detail and restriction on the ciriculum of the schools unless it's necessary. math, literature..etc are necessary, however mandates on religious or scientific teaches should be left up to schools their governments (no matter religious based or not) and their country.

if we were to follow up with that, we would save space and only have a clause going along the lines of:

d)EXTENDS the right of each WA member nation to reject, accept, or simultaneously teach religion and/or sciences in whatever manner the nation deems necessary for it's population.

also, we can't limit freedom of the people in those free nations. what if an unreligious government leads a country, however a population demands religion and science be in the same class in order to better relate the two? in order to break the barriers between science and religion? why should the WA get in the way of that? and the people's will?

i say we change those clause. and also consider my teacher's plan as well. thank you.

Wachichi

i have not been involved in the conversation so dont take my ideas to seriously. so are these nations that are getting funds to pay their teacher salaries asking for these funds or is the WA going to just give it to specific nations?
if these nations are asking for these funds, shouldnt they be loans? WA shouldnt be making money off these loans but that would help to curb the long term costs of this proposal.

nations apply for the funds, the committee approves or denies them. if they are approved, they get the money, (on teacher's salaries if my idea is included) for only a finite time period as mentined in my other comments above. over that time, they have to make the changes to accomodate the payment of the public servants.

i think if a nation is poor enough to be applicable to this funding, asking it to repay (with interest over time) wouldn't really be helping it. it would only hurt the country and it's government even more, when the purpose of this is to help those countries in need.


that's just my perspective.
Wachichi

i have not been involved in the conversation so dont take my ideas to seriously. so are these nations that are getting funds to pay their teacher salaries asking for these funds or is the WA going to just give it to specific nations?
if these nations are asking for these funds, shouldnt they be loans? WA shouldnt be making money off these loans but that would help to curb the long term costs of this proposal.


Indeed in a perfect world this would be a very good idea. However the w.a. is imperfect.

A rebate on the mandatory w.a. donation a nation gives as a condition of membership might also be a sensible way to release funds for the payment of teaching staff. The rebate would be commensurate with the cost of such wages and would be included in the w.a.'s assessment of each nations ability to pay its "donation" and rebated untill such time as the nation in question's economy had grown to afford it's statutory responsibilities under this education resolution.

Whilst this may actually be a sensible way to proceed we would be interested to know if it would be legal or if it would be seen as an amendment to resolution #17 ?

Precisely what I wish to prevent, in the case of theology and science. Although, it probably could be done anyways, without defining 'course' (which, I admit, is rather arbitrary).
Then I'm almost certain to be directed to vote against your proposal, Ambassador.

I don't believe that, in order to create a primary education standard, we have to write like primary grade students.
No, but it would be helpful to write about primary grade students.

As for the oddities that you claim exist: 'literature' is already defined as 'reading', 'composition' is synonymous with 'writing', and 'arithmetic' is a branch of mathematics.
Er, no. 'Literature' is defined here as 'reading and analyzing approved publications' (i.e. literary analysis), 'composition' is defined as 'the systems of writing' (which it isn't), and 'mathematics' as 'the principles of numbers and their relations' (which is a university-level Analysis and Algebra course).

The definitions are left in a broadly written form, so that the World Assembly isn't forcing a strongly defined curriculum, and at the same time isn't limiting what can be taught.
Actually it is limiting what can be taught in the sense of setting lower limits; these elements shall be part of the standard, IIIa declares, no matter how unachievable they are for the average primary school student.

While article III is confusing, it is not at all contradictory. Sections e and f are conditionals of section d. Under section d, a nation can replace a science course with a religious course, under the condition that the nation has a state-sponsored religion, and under the condition that they are not taught in the same class, unless two alternative courses are given.
It's section a that they conflict with. If you really want to include d, e and f then you need some sort of cross-reference to resolve the contradiction. For my money, you still haven't justified including d, e and f at all.

"...by any means deemed appropriate". This would include a financial aid package from the EOC. Though, I see how the aid requirements are contradictory with Article II. The requirement, for first-time applicants, is that they are not charging a tax, or anything similar, for public school attendance. I could reword it to include a conditional statement, or I could reword the requirements to something along the line of: "...in compliance with all mandates in this resolution."
That whizzing sound was my point zipping past your ear. I'm not concerned with how a nation pays for this resolution -- article II is quite clear about that. I am concerned with what criteria the EOC uses to decide if it's going to give aid. Article VII vaguely implies that the only criteria that matter is a nation sticking to articles II, III and IV. Since articles II, III and IV are mandatory, all member nations will be sticking to them, which makes them useless as criteria.

Article VI introduces the idea of nations "opting in". Opting in to what? How? What on earth is this supposed to mean?

Indeed in a perfect world this would be a very good idea. However the w.a. is imperfect.

A rebate on the mandatory w.a. donation a nation gives as a condition of membership might also be a sensible way to release funds for the payment of teaching staff. The rebate would be commensurate with the cost of such wages and would be included in the w.a.'s assessment of each nations ability to pay its "donation" and rebated untill such time as the nation in question's economy had grown to afford it's statutory responsibilities under this education resolution.

Whilst this may actually be a sensible way to proceed we would be interested to know if it would be legal or if it would be seen as an amendment to resolution #17 ?


i don't think such a donation would be necessary now that we're limiting the time period of funding to a few months. it puts pressure on that nation to shape things up.

has anyone considered my teacher salaries inclusion in my arguments mentioned before? it's a viable plan and a sensible one to apply to this resolution.

also, ambassador from Glen-Rhodes, please consider the amendments i have sugested to shorten the proposal in my past comments.

Wachichi

No, but it would be helpful to write about primary grade students.I did not come up with these ideas myself, Ambassador. The writing of this proposal has been multilateral on all accounts. Some nations that have participated have a very advanced education system, and wished that their advancements were acknowledged. However, the largest thing you have seemed to gloss over is the word "or", which completely moots any point you have to make about who this act is aimed at.

Er, no. 'Literature' is defined here as 'reading and analyzing approved publications' (i.e. literary analysis), 'composition' is defined as 'the systems of writing' (which it isn't), and 'mathematics' as 'the principles of numbers and their relations' (which is a university-level Analysis and Algebra course).
Actually it is limiting what can be taught in the sense of setting lower limits; these elements shall be part of the standard, IIIa declares, no matter how unachievable they are for the average primary school student.Yes, Ambassador, 'reading and analyzing approved publications'. What you said is that the definition made no regards to reading. As you can see, and as you've pointed out, it clearly does. Furthermore, composition is defined as, by various dictionaries: "the art of putting words and sentences together in accordance with the rules of grammar and rhetoric". Now, I'm no genius, but that sure does sound like "the systems of writing" of a nation. Also defined in various dictionaries is mathematics: "the study of numbers, equations, functions, and geometric shapes (see: geometry) and their relationships". Again, "the principles of numbers and their relationships" sounds eerily similar. I could say arithmetic, but saying mathematics leaves wiggle-room for nations to decide what level they're going to teach at. Again, if you wanted an act that set minimum intellectual standards, you ought to have shown more support for my previous proposal.

I find it rather petty of myself that I'm giving dictionary definitions to people of obvious advanced intellect. But, when you're opposing an article because it uses synonyms, I have to begin to question whether or not I'm getting across to you.
It's section a that they conflict with. If you really want to include d, e and f then you need some sort of cross-reference to resolve the contradiction. For my money, you still haven't justified including d, e and f at all.
There is no contradiction. Section a refers to section d, which is followed by two conditionals, e and f. To respond to any claim of contradiction, I'll compact d, e and f in to a single clause. However, the question of whether or not they are justified is purely ideological, and the answer will be given at the vote.

That whizzing sound was my point zipping past your ear. I'm not concerned with how a nation pays for this resolution -- article II is quite clear about that. I am concerned with what criteria the EOC uses to decide if it's going to give aid. Article VII vaguely implies that the only criteria that matter is a nation sticking to articles II, III and IV. Since articles II, III and IV are mandatory, all member nations will be sticking to them, which makes them useless as criteria.

Article VI introduces the idea of nations "opting in". Opting in to what? How? What on earth is this supposed to mean?
Then I'll strike any and all criteria, if you're worried about redundancy. The current criteria serves an additional check. Better yet, with this argument, I could simply strike out article VII and the EOC. Lastly, an opt-in model, in this case, would only extend aid to nations who request it.

Proposal, with updated amendments and revisions:
ACKNOWLEDGING that many member nations lack an organized educational system, either by choice or otherwise,

REALIZING that education promotes economic and social growth,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE 'education' as the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the abilities of reasoning and judgment, and to generally prepare oneself or others for mature life.
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.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by any means deemed appropriate.

III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education:
a) SUCH a standard for primary education shall consist of literature, composition, mathematics, history, and either science or religion, – or both -- per article III, sections d and e, that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) DEFINING literature as the reading and analyzing of acceptable publications of each separate WA member nation; composition as the systems of writing of the WA member nation; mathematics as the principles of numbers and their relations; history as the series of significant events, documents, and people of the WA member nation; science as the universally accepted laws that govern the universe; and religion as theological theories.
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 science courses, and substitute such courses for religious teaching, given that the WA member nation provides a state-sponsored religion.
f) PROHIBITS the teaching of science and religion in the same course, unless alternative courses are offered in both religion and science.

IV) MANDATE that all WA member nations make education, as defined under this Act, readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of high-level brain activity.

V) MANDATE that funding for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, if a WA member nation opts-in. Such funding will be made available to WA member nations under the conditions mentioned in article VI, section a, and section b.
a) Funding is limited to:
i) the procurement of educational supplies, including, but not limited to, textbooks, writing utilities, literature, and technologies;
ii) the construction of educational facilities, specific to primary education.
iii) the retrofitting of existing educational facilities to comply with article IV.

Co-authored by Wachichi.
Forgive me if certain things have been excluded. Kindly remind me that I have forgotten to include a matter.

Also, Ambassador of Wachichi, as you are co-authoring this proposal, and you understand most about what you want, you should write an additional clause for the funding that you wish, and put that clause up for complete debate.

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

OK, I give up. You clearly aren't listening, and you certainly aren't understanding. What you have is vague, inconsistent and in at least two major areas wrong-headed. My continuing to bring its defects to your attention isn't going to cause it to be improved in any way, and you've run through my stock of goodwill.

See you in the bar.

i don't think such a donation would be necessary now that we're limiting the time period of funding to a few months. it puts pressure on that nation to shape things up.

has anyone considered my teacher salaries inclusion in my arguments mentioned before? it's a viable plan and a sensible one to apply to this resolution.

also, ambassador from Glen-Rhodes, please consider the amendments i have sugested to shorten the proposal in my past comments.

Wachichi


What we are suggesting is that instead of the w.a. collecting donations of membership from poor nations which cannot pay their teachers and then paying money back to them so that they can pay their teachers, the w.a. should allow poorer states to pay less for membership and direct them to pay their teacher's wages ( for what ever period it deems fit ) with this rebate. If this rebate is not sufficient then a "top up" payment could be made by the w.a.

This system will cut bureacracy and will have the benefit of not requiring the rest of the membership to pay large sums to pay the teachers of poorer states. Except in extreme circumstances of course.

Yours e.t.c. ,

i can't approve of the newer version, ambassador.

1. it never establishes the committee to oversee all this. how will the proposal be enforcement without such a committee. who will give the aid? who will administer it?

2. teacher's wages: iiii) teacher salaries, for a finite time period of 6 months, in which the selected nation must work on reallocating it's educational funding to fully pay for teachers' salaries. If a nation can not accomplish such a goal in 6 months, a 3 month extension may be provided once.

Wachichi

What we are suggesting is that instead of the w.a. collecting donations of membership from poor nations which cannot pay their teachers and then paying money back to them so that they can pay their teachers, the w.a. should allow poorer states to pay less for membership and direct them to pay their teacher's wages ( for what ever period it deems fit ) with this rebate. If this rebate is not sufficient then a "top up" payment could be made by the w.a.

This system will cut bureacracy and will have the benefit of not requiring the rest of the membership to pay large sums to pay the teachers of poorer states. Except in extreme circumstances of course.

Yours e.t.c. ,

the WA General Fund, states that the WA will be funded by donations from nations. more specifically, voluntary donations. poorer nations aren't going to be donating any money in the first place.

however, if we were to establish a fee to join the WA we could hopefully adequately fund such a proposal. we could then reallocate that money to the proposal. and we won't have to worry about donations.

Wachichi.

also read my teacher proposal above.

Wahichi

the WA General Fund, states that the WA will be funded by donations from nations. more specifically, voluntary donations. poorer nations aren't going to be donating any money in the first place.

however, if we were to establish a fee to join the WA we could hopefully adequately fund such a proposal. we could then reallocate that money to the proposal. and we won't have to worry about donations.

Wachichi.

also read my teacher proposal above.

Wahichi



If the honoured Ambassador thinks that all less wealthy nations will not be paying dues which are not voluntary then their acumen is unusually at fault we are afraid. Nowhere does it say in the w.a. Funding legislation that these Donations are voluntary and no amount of foolish wriggling will change this fact. And neither will dictionary definitions of words which fail to take into account complete context.

As for the wording they have suggested, it is arbitrary to make this funding for education last only for six months with a possible three month extension. What if ( in extreme circumstances ) after nine months of w.a. funding a nation still cannot meet it's teaching wage bill ?

The w.a. should be able to decide on a case by case basis how long a nation must be funded. The limit of this funding would be set by the w.a. on investigation of these individual cases. if the Honoured Ambassador really wants to include this kind of wage protection for teachers then this must be the approach.

And besides if the Honoured Ambassador is really that concerned with teacher's working conditions why does teacher training receive no attention whatsoever ? This particular aspect of teacher's conditions of employment is vital if the standards required by this resolution are ever to be met and if teachers are to be fairly expected to help meet these minimum standards.

If teachers are to have w.a. funded wages then they surely must be required to be properly trained to meet its standards.

Yours e.t.c.

OK, I give up. You clearly aren't listening, and you certainly aren't understanding. What you have is vague, inconsistent and in at least two major areas wrong-headed. My continuing to bring its defects to your attention isn't going to cause it to be improved in any way, and you've run through my stock of goodwill.

See you in the bar.

What I have is the result of going through debates, where Ambassadors were telling me that I was too specific. The current proposal does not contradict itself. There are no inconsistencies. I've pointed this out twice already. It is not a problem with the proposal, it is a problem with you and how you are understanding it (rather, misunderstanding it). I've given you a clear-cut, step-by-step guide to what is allowed and what is not allowed, and still you say that it's contradictory. I can do no more, and I will not try if you don't extend the same amount of effort.

You say that Article III, section a doesn't reference the limitations set by sections d and e, yet it does, plain as day: "and either science or religion, – or both – per article III, sections d and e...". I do not understand how you draw any contradictions in all of Article III, Ambassador, and you have not yet made it clear as to how you are doing so. What you've told me is the same thing twice, and each time I've given you a response that invalidates your concerns. If I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, then say it differently. This is common sense, Ambassador.

Furthermore, you have this absurd thought that something has to be written at a primary grade level, if it is to affect primary schooling. Ambassador, go to your nearest education official and look at their curriculum goals. Reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic are not the words used to write these goals. They, also, are certainly not written in simple sentences. The point is, and I'm going to try and say this in the simplest way possible: just because it uses big words doesn't mean it's for big people.

If you read but one statement in this rant, for lack of a better word, then let it be this: if I am not understanding you, then make me understand you. Giving me the same paragraph with different words isn't going to help me at all understand, if I didn't understand the original paragraph to begin with.

i can't approve of the newer version, ambassador.

1. it never establishes the committee to oversee all this. how will the proposal be enforcement without such a committee. who will give the aid? who will administer it?

2. teacher's wages: iiii) teacher salaries, for a finite time period of 6 months, in which the selected nation must work on reallocating it's educational funding to fully pay for teachers' salaries. If a nation can not accomplish such a goal in 6 months, a 3 month extension may be provided once.

Wachichi
The proposal, if enacted, will be enforced by the World Assembly Compliance Commission. Proposals, in my view, only need committees to oversee intricate details specific to that proposal. That being said, a financing committee could exist. But, on second look, a committee is not needed to oversee that nations are in compliance with this act.

Updated with the new committee article. Also, Ambassador, I have to agree with a point that the Ambassador of Urgench made. The dates set are completely arbitrary. I would suggest extending it to nations with low GDPs, without the time limitations. However, there are only 165 characters available to use.

ACKNOWLEDGING that many member nations lack an organized educational system, either by choice or otherwise,

REALIZING that education promotes economic and social growth,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE 'education' as the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the abilities of reasoning and judgment, and to generally prepare oneself or others for mature life.
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.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by any means deemed appropriate.

III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education:
a) SUCH a standard for primary education shall consist of literature, composition, mathematics, history, and either science or religion, – or both -- per article III, sections d and e, that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) DEFINING literature as the reading and analyzing of acceptable publications of each separate WA member nation; composition as the systems of writing of the WA member nation; mathematics as the principles of numbers and their relations; history as the series of significant events, documents, and people of the WA member nation; science as the universally accepted laws that govern the universe; and religion as theological theories.
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 science courses, and substitute such courses for religious teaching, given that the WA member nation provides a state-sponsored religion.
f) PROHIBITS the teaching of science and religion in the same course, unless alternative courses are offered in both religion and science.

IV) MANDATE that all WA member nations make education, as defined under this Act, readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of high-level brain activity.

V) MANDATE that financial aid for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, if a WA member nation opts-in. Such financial will be made available to WA member nations under the conditions mentioned in article VI, section a, and section b.
a) Funding is limited to:
i) the procurement of educational supplies, including, but not limited to, textbooks, writing utilities, literature, and technologies;
ii) the construction of educational facilities, specific to primary education.
iii) the retrofitting of existing educational facilities to comply with article IV.

VI) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid.

Co-authored by Wachichi.

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

i agree with the changes, i'll drop the teacher's wages, only if the committee was to determine how much money was being used on a case per case basis. i put the time limits because of the ambassador's comment about unendless funding, and that nations would ask for money for education forever using up all the WA funds. that's why i included the time limit. however, if it isn't a concern to the ambassdor, i have no problem not including it. however, if we won't include teacher wages, or training, they why go into such detail in clause V, a? we'll just leave it up to the committee to determine how much, where and to whom the money will go. and to what purposes (i.e. infrastructure, wages, supplies...etc)


i think allowing the committee more flexibility on it's part will make this bill more effective. also, in clause V, there is a mistake "Such financial aid will be...."

i think we should leave it up to the committee to decide what needs funding in each individual nation. so, i, ii, iii should be removed to allow for more flexibility.

Wachichi

i agree with the changes, i'll drop the teacher's wages, only if the committee was to determine how much money was being used on a case per case basis. i put the time limits because of the ambassador's comment about unendless funding, and that nations would ask for money for education forever using up all the WA funds. that's why i included the time limit. however, if it isn't a concern to the ambassdor, i have no problem not including it. however, if we won't include teacher wages, or training, they why go into such detail in clause V, a? we'll just leave it up to the committee to determine how much, where and to whom the money will go. and to what purposes (i.e. infrastructure, wages, supplies...etc)


i think allowing the committee more flexibility on it's part will make this bill more effective. also, in clause V, there is a mistake "Such financial aid will be...."

i think we should leave it up to the committee to decide what needs funding in each individual nation. so, i, ii, iii should be removed to allow for more flexibility.

Wachichi
We don't have to give up limitations completely, Ambassador. It is just that limiting salary aid to a certain amount of months is a rather aribtrary limitation. A number was picked, and you went with it. We could do it, but we can't go in to heavy detail when we only have so many characters left to use.

i agree with the changes, i'll drop the teacher's wages, only if the committee was to determine how much money was being used on a case per case basis. i put the time limits because of the ambassador's comment about unendless funding, and that nations would ask for money for education forever using up all the WA funds. that's why i included the time limit. however, if it isn't a concern to the ambassdor, i have no problem not including it. however, if we won't include teacher wages, or training, they why go into such detail in clause V, a? we'll just leave it up to the committee to determine how much, where and to whom the money will go. and to what purposes (i.e. infrastructure, wages, supplies...etc)


i think allowing the committee more flexibility on it's part will make this bill more effective. also, in clause V, there is a mistake "Such financial aid will be...."

i think we should leave it up to the committee to decide what needs funding in each individual nation. so, i, ii, iii should be removed to allow for more flexibility.

Wachichi


This would certainly make more sense. The committee should have more leeway in how it apportions funds and it could do so for teaching costs also. It would set funds and compliance deadlines.

Yours e.t.c.

yes, of course we can't spell all that out so we could only assume the responsibilities of the committee. we won't be able to put it in print.

ambassador from Glens-Rhodes,

i recognize that we have to have some limits, however the funding is so limiting to the committee. what if another aspect arises that needs immediate funding that the resolution doesn't recognize. they will be barred from providing that aid!


we have to assume that there are other aspects of funding of education that we haven't taken into account. so we can't limit funding to i,ii,iii. what about nations without national, or regional education systems? what about nations that advocate for home schooling or some unknown schooling system? the funding would be useless, because it would only apply to a commonly known educational system.

we can't limit funding the i,ii,iii. if you will not change them, then we can compromise. if you made changes in V, a. stating.

"Funding is recognized but not limited to:"

then my nation would find it more acceptable. though we would stress taking out i,ii,iii and all of a) since clause VI establishes the committee and all it's due responsibilities. this would great reduce the word count and maybe we could include a sentence or two in the preamble to make our cause a bit more clear or something of the sort.

please consider the changes mentioned above.

wachichi

anyone considered my reccomendations?

wachichi

well this debate has been lacking some activity. someone answer me!

Wachichi

We suppose you should message the honoured delegation of Glen Rhodes to see what they have to say on the matter of your suggestions. Until we see them in context and in writing we have no opinion.

But they make some sense as far as we can make out.

Yours e.t.c. ,

thank you ambassador, i was getting lonely here. lol.

i have contacted him and alerted him. he'll be here. ... i think..

Wachichi

Sorry for my unusually long absence, Ambassadors. I have revised the funding section in to, essentially, a skeleton of what it formerly was. I have reservations about the lack of regulation, but I feel that this act being passed is much more important than my undying need of bureaucracy. Questions, comments, and concerns are, as always, requested and appreciated.
ACKNOWLEDGING that many member nations lack an organized educational system, either by choice or otherwise,

REALIZING that education promotes economic and social growth,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE 'education' as the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the abilities of reasoning and judgment, and to generally prepare oneself or others for mature life.
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.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by any means deemed appropriate.

III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education:
a) SUCH a standard for primary education shall consist of literature, composition, mathematics, history, and either science or religion, – or both -- per article III, sections d and e, that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) DEFINING literature as the reading and analyzing of acceptable publications of each separate WA member nation; composition as the systems of writing of the WA member nation; mathematics as the principles of numbers and their relations; history as the series of significant events, documents, and people of the WA member nation; science as the universally accepted laws that govern the universe; and religion as theological theories.
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 science courses, and substitute such courses for religious teaching, given that the WA member nation provides a state-sponsored religion.
f) PROHIBITS the teaching of science and religion in the same course, unless alternative courses are offered in both religion and science.

IV) MANDATE that all WA member nations make education, as defined under this Act, readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of high-level brain activity.

V) MANDATE that financial aid for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, if a WA member nation opts-in. Such financial aid may be used in any means necessary to comply with this Act.

VI) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid.

Co-authored by Wachichi.

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

i am happier with the newer version. i'm curious to know why ambassador, don't you just update it on the first page? why continually post up the never version? but anyway, i only see some few wording that i would change, however, if they aren't changed, i wouldn't care.

1. "DEFINING literature as the reading, {writing}, and analyzing of acceptable publications of each separate WA member nation;"

i would include writing. also, what is intended by "acceptable publications"? is unaccepted publications by a nation not considered literature anymore? if a book is banned because of it's ideas, it no longer constitutes literature?

2. "history as the series of significant events, documents, and people of the WA member nation"

"of the WA member nation"? so history in a non-member state is no longer history? what if a member or non-member state teachers international history? or history of another nation?

3."and religion as theological theories." Theories? many people don't consider those theories, they consider them facts. INDISPUTABLE facts. so i think that might spark some fire.

4. "PROHIBITS the teaching of science and religion in the same course, unless alternative courses are offered in both religion and science."

even though i disagree, i can compromise for the sake of the bill.

5. "ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid."

for financial aid "to WA member nations". i would include the words in the quotations, just for clarification.


again, i would like those changes, however, if you don't make any of them, i wouldn't mind.

Wachichi

Clauses V) and VI) conflict with each other honoured Ambassador, the committee cannot deny any funding since this resolution states that funding must be provided to any nation which "opts-in" so that they can meet their legal obligations under this statute. No denial of funds is possible because of prior legal imperative.

" V) MANDATE that financial aid for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, if a WA member nation opts-in. Such financial aid may be used in any means necessary to comply with this Act.

VI) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid. "

Further to this we should say that this wording is completely unacceptable to us and we suspect to many other states also. W.A. funds should only be available to states which actually cannot meet their legal obligations by any other means. As is this resolution would allow the Empire of Urgench which is wealthy and stable to avail of w.a. funds for its education system ( not that it needs them of course, but not all wealthy states directly fund their education systems and indeed many do not see to funding of education at all ).

Also the committee has no terms of reference and yet is invested with great power over considerable sums of money, this cannot be a sensible arrangement. The w.a. must direct how its monies are to be spent responsibly or otherwise funding drift is inevitable ( by which we by no means mean to imply any impropriety, merely the natural results of payouts without conditions ).

The rest of the statute is fair, and with the inclusion of sensible funding provisions would meet with our support.

Yours e.t.c. ,

i am happier with the newer version. i'm curious to know why ambassador, don't you just update it on the first page? why continually post up the never version? but anyway, i only see some few wording that i would change, however, if they aren't changed, i wouldn't care.

1. "DEFINING literature as the reading, {writing}, and analyzing of acceptable publications of each separate WA member nation;"

i would include writing. also, what is intended by "acceptable publications"? is unaccepted publications by a nation not considered literature anymore? if a book is banned because of it's ideas, it no longer constitutes literature?

2. "history as the series of significant events, documents, and people of the WA member nation"

"of the WA member nation"? so history in a non-member state is no longer history? what if a member or non-member state teachers international history? or history of another nation?

3."and religion as theological theories." Theories? many people don't consider those theories, they consider them facts. INDISPUTABLE facts. so i think that might spark some fire.

4. "PROHIBITS the teaching of science and religion in the same course, unless alternative courses are offered in both religion and science."

even though i disagree, i can compromise for the sake of the bill.

5. "ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid."

for financial aid "to WA member nations". i would include the words in the quotations, just for clarification.


again, i would like those changes, however, if you don't make any of them, i wouldn't mind.

Wachichi
Although 'composition' is defined as the systems of writing of a nation, it doesn't actually mandate that writing be taught, does it? I've added to the definition, thus so.

The 'acceptable publications' is intended to protect the censorship rights of nations. While banned literature is, indeed, literature, I do not feel like the muddling this proposal down with sweeping bans, Ambassador.

I, also, will not be rewording 'theological theories'. This proposal is not the place to start a debate on which religion is indeed the single true religion, simply because this resolution defines religion as 'indisputable theological fact'.

As for your concerns about history: if a nation chooses to teach about worldwide history, then it's their choice. However, the goal of this proposal is to set a minimum, and I feel that a nation teaching its own history is an acceptable minimum.

Lastly, I can include "to WA member nations", but is there really a point? Non WA members cannot get funding from the WA, last I checked.

Also, I do not replace the first post, because I like to keep a public record of the revisions of my proposals.

Clauses V) and VI) conflict with each other honoured Ambassador, the committee cannot deny any funding since this resolution states that funding must be provided to any nation which "opts-in" so that they can meet their legal obligations under this statute. No denial of funds is possible because of prior legal imperative.

" V) MANDATE that financial aid for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, if a WA member nation opts-in. Such financial aid may be used in any means necessary to comply with this Act.

VI) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid. "

Further to this we should say that this wording is completely unacceptable to us and we suspect to many other states also. W.A. funds should only be available to states which actually cannot meet their legal obligations by any other means. As is this resolution would allow the Empire of Urgench which is wealthy and stable to avail of w.a. funds for its education system ( not that it needs them of course, but not all wealthy states directly fund their education systems and indeed many do not see to funding of education at all ).

Also the committee has no terms of reference and yet is invested with great power over considerable sums of money, this cannot be a sensible arrangement. The w.a. must direct how its monies are to be spent responsibly or otherwise funding drift is inevitable ( by which we by no means mean to imply any impropriety, merely the natural results of payouts without conditions ).

The rest of the statute is fair, and with the inclusion of sensible funding provisions would meet with our support.

Yours e.t.c. ,
You're absolutely right about the contradiction, Ambassador. I've rewritten article V, in hopes of clearing the contradiction. If I have not, please tell me so. I have also rewritten the funding clause to set limitations. Since I'm a fan of the previous limitations, I re-added them, until you or another Ambassador suggests a different set.

ACKNOWLEDGING that many member nations lack an organized educational system, either by choice or otherwise,

REALIZING that education promotes economic and social growth,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE 'education' as the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the abilities of reasoning and judgment, and to generally prepare oneself or others for mature life.
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.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by any means deemed appropriate.

III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education:
a) SUCH a standard for primary education shall consist of literature, composition, mathematics, history, and either science or religion, – or both -- per article III, sections d and e, that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) DEFINING literature as the reading and analyzing of acceptable publications of each separate WA member nation; composition as the systems of writing of the WA member nation; mathematics as the principles of numbers and their relations; history as the series of significant events, documents, and people of the WA member nation; science as the universally accepted laws that govern the universe; and religion as theological theories.
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 science courses, and substitute such courses for religious teaching, given that the WA member nation provides a state-sponsored religion.
f) PROHIBITS the teaching of science and religion in the same course, unless alternative courses are offered in both religion and science.

IV) MANDATE that all WA member nations make education, as defined under this Act, readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of high-level brain activity.

V) MANDATE that financial aid for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, given that the nation falls under one or more qualifications listed below:
a) the nation is unable to fiscally meet the requirements of this Act, after instituting every possible fund-raising operation, within the means of maintaining economic stability, or
b) the nation has no existing educational system or infrastructure.
ALSO MANDATE that funding be limited to:
c) the procurement of educational supplies, including, but not limited to, textbooks, writing utilities, literature, and technologies;
d) the construction of educational facilities, specific to primary education.
e) the retrofitting of existing primary education facilities to comply with article IV.

VI) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid.

Co-authored by Wachichi.

I really think that the demands are just too high. What the author seems to be forgetting is that this is for primary children - by the definition of the proposal, we're looking at kids aged around 5-12. Many nations, for good reason, may not wish to embroil children in theological theories etc. until they reach secondary school. Same goes for history, and this has good reason. One of the defining moments of Cobdenian history is the Mutiny of 1870, yet I do not think any kid is going to be able to understand the compexities of the causes. Similarly, it seems a bit stupid to get kids to analyse the literary merit of "Harry has a Big Red Ball"

Simply put, kids are thick. Therefore, keep it basic. Reading, writing and arithmatic

Dear Ambassadors,
I accept this resolution, but I do have one flaw to report.
Although most of our countries have a reasonably age of maturity, I think it is bad that the childhood is defined as being between 1/3 and 2/3 of a persons life until the age of maturity. What if someone has 14 as the age of maturity? You say the children from this country should get less education than children from a different country, where the age of maturity is 18 for example?
I think we should change this to say that primary education should be at least 6 years for example, or that at least the basics of each subject are tought, according to WA guidelines.
Regards,
Ambassador of Gresson

Dear Ambassadors,
I accept this resolution, but I do have one flaw to report.
Although most of our countries have a reasonably age of maturity, I think it is bad that the childhood is defined as being between 1/3 and 2/3 of a persons life until the age of maturity. What if someone has 14 as the age of maturity? You say the children from this country should get less education than children from a different country, where the age of maturity is 18 for example?
I think we should change this to say that primary education should be at least 6 years for example, or that at least the basics of each subject are tought, according to WA guidelines.
Regards,
Ambassador of Gresson




Unfortunately, respected Ambassador, not all citizens of this organisation's member states have the same life spans or life cycles, therefore this statute cannot be more specific about actual length of childhood except to define it as a portion of a life.

You should also probably be aware that this statute is only trying to deal with primary education of younger children.

Yours e.t.c. ,

I really think that the demands are just too high. What the author seems to be forgetting is that this is for primary children - by the definition of the proposal, we're looking at kids aged around 5-12. Many nations, for good reason, may not wish to embroil children in theological theories etc. until they reach secondary school. Same goes for history, and this has good reason. One of the defining moments of Cobdenian history is the Mutiny of 1870, yet I do not think any kid is going to be able to understand the compexities of the causes. Similarly, it seems a bit stupid to get kids to analyse the literary merit of "Harry has a Big Red Ball"

Simply put, kids are thick. Therefore, keep it basic. Reading, writing and arithmatic



We hold the esteemed and respected Ambassador for Cobdenia in the highest of respect but we must dissagree with them on this point. While it is certainly reasonable to suggest that the very youngest of children will likely not benefit from education in certain subjects it is not unreasonable to expect children about to enter secondary education to have a broader basic understanding of their world.

The expectation that children about to enter secondary education are only as capable as much younger children fails to take account of the fact that scientific study has shown that the optimal period in which a child is capable of absorbing information and learn from it is in the earlier phases significantly prior to pubescence. front loading, so to speak, children's education as much as possible has been shown to have very positive outcomes later on in education. This is especially the case for the aquirement of languages, mathematics ( including higher forms ) and basic scientific theories. When this kind of approach is combined with a strong emphasis on creativity, physical activity and play the benefits can be dramatic.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Although there are many, many other flaws with this proposal beyond these two, here's two problems we've decided to pick on tonight:

1. While we disagree with the very mention of religion in this proposal, its definition as 'theological theories' is grossly offensive to members of non-theistic religions. (This setting aside the ridiculous use of the word 'theories'.) Theological study pertains to the study of deities; some religions do not have deities.

2. We are appalled that sexual education is not included as one of the core syllabus components, and consider this a deeply irresponsible omission.

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

1. While we disagree with the very mention of religion in this proposal, its definition as 'theological theories' is grossly offensive to members of non-theistic religions. (This setting aside the ridiculous use of the word 'theories'.) Theological study pertains to the study of deities; some religions do not have deities.
You have a point, but offer no rewordings. I can use ecclesiastical, divine, spiritual, ministerial, holy, theistic, and myriad other words to attach to 'theory' (which I will not remove; I am not about to start a holy war, and calling all religions fact is just a huge logical fallacy). All of these words can be denied for the same reason you deny 'theological'. I trust that you'll have a hard time coming up with a word. The easiest thing to do would be to not define 'religion', but then somebody will be vehemently against this proposal simply because of that.

2. We are appalled that sexual education is not included as one of the core syllabus components, and consider this a deeply irresponsible omission.Sex education is something I feel that should be decided by each separate nation, not the World Assembly. I hope you can understand this.

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

I agree with Dr. Castro. Sex education is something that is highly immoral to our country's standards and has no place in schools.

You have a point, but offer no rewordings.
Of course not. I don't think the proposal should be discussing religious education (or if it does, that should be the only thing it considers - the matter is too complex for one line in an unrelated proposal).

Nonetheless, for the hell of it:
I can use ecclesiastical, divine, spiritual, ministerial, holy, theistic, and myriad other words
First, your conflation of the above terms is rather disturbing. Surely you are aware of their differences?

'Ecclesiastical' is an even more specific term, relating solely to Christian practices. It could, I suppose, be used (wrongly) for other religions having church-like institutions, but would have no meaning for religions without such. Furthermore, an 'ecclesiastical theory' would be one speculating about the origins or processes of the the Christian church, not about biological processes.

This difficulty would be multiplied for 'ministerial': of course, you are aware that many religions do not have ministers, and I'm sure your inclusion of the term was a momentary slip, so comically stupid would it otherwise have been.

'Divine' and 'spiritual' are better fits, though again, they are neither synonyms of one another nor of the other terms. However, one need not be religious to be spiritual. A deist, for example, holds spiritual beliefs. Pantheistic religions do not really make use of the concept of divinity.

Holy (or perhaps 'sacred?') seems to me the most universal fit, given it. Indeed, the noted Quodite sociologist and street-slam poet Emile 'Dr Huff'n'Puff' Quirkheim defined religion as 'a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things'.

'Theistic' returns to the same problem as in 'theological'.

Second, to give a concrete example: this proposal does not prohibit the teaching of Buddhism within a biology class. A Buddhist-oriented form of intelligent design would be acceptable; a Jewish one would not.

Third, however you get the definition right, I'm curious as to how this proposal would affect critical thinking or epistemology, such as the compulsory 'Theory of Knowledge' element of the International Diploma our students study. Even in our rabidly secularist nation, our teachers recognise it as nonsense not to discuss beliefs comparatively. This is nothing compared to the challenge our children when deciding to study either the history of religion, or the history of science, but not both.
Sex education is something I feel that should be decided by each separate nation, not the World Assembly. I hope you can understand this.
Most of this proposal is something I feel should be decided by each nation. Why does your feeling trump mine?

-- Samantha Benson

Of course not. I don't think the proposal should be discussing religious education (or if it does, that should be the only thing it considers - the matter is too complex for one line in an unrelated proposal).

Nonetheless, for the hell of it:

First, your conflation of the above terms is rather disturbing. Surely you are aware of their differences?

'Ecclesiastical' is an even more specific term, relating solely to Christian practices. It could, I suppose, be used (wrongly) for other religions having church-like institutions, but would have no meaning for religions without such. Furthermore, an 'ecclesiastical theory' would be one speculating about the origins or processes of the the Christian church, not about biological processes.

This difficulty would be multiplied for 'ministerial': of course, you are aware that many religions do not have ministers, and I'm sure your inclusion of the term was a momentary slip, so comically stupid would it otherwise have been.

'Divine' and 'spiritual' are better fits, though again, they are neither synonyms of one another nor of the other terms. However, one need not be religious to be spiritual. A deist, for example, holds spiritual beliefs. Pantheistic religions do not really make use of the concept of divinity.

Holy (or perhaps 'sacred?') seems to me the most universal fit, given it. Indeed, the noted Quodite sociologist and street-slam poet Emile 'Dr Huff'n'Puff' Quirkheim defined religion as 'a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things'.

'Theistic' returns to the same problem as in 'theological'.

Second, to give a concrete example: this proposal does not prohibit the teaching of Buddhism within a biology class. A Buddhist-oriented form of intelligent design would be acceptable; a Jewish one would not.

Third, however you get the definition right, I'm curious as to how this proposal would affect critical thinking or epistemology, such as the compulsory 'Theory of Knowledge' element of the International Diploma our students study. Even in our rabidly secularist nation, our teachers recognise it as nonsense not to discuss beliefs comparatively. This is nothing compared to the challenge our children when deciding to study either the history of religion, or the history of science, but not both.

Most of this proposal is something I feel should be decided by each nation. Why does your feeling trump mine?

-- Samantha Benson


With respect Ms. Benson, your assertion that religious education is too complex for one line of inclusion in this bill could easily be said of sex education. Both subjects deal with controversial and sensitive issues which must be taught with care and attention to the impressionable nature of the children.

We would approve the inclusion of sex education in an education statute and we are distinctly uneasy at the prospect of religious education which is not taught as a branch of anthropology being included. We would be less uneasy were both subjects included but since the possibility of them both being dealt with properly in the space available is minimal we would be happier if they were both removed.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Unfortunately, respected Ambassador, not all citizens of this organisation's member states have the same life spans or life cycles, therefore this statute cannot be more specific about actual length of childhood except to define it as a portion of a life.

You should also probably be aware that this statute is only trying to deal with primary education of younger children.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Then we should change the resolution to define the years of primary education as a fraction of the whole life, instead of a fraction of time until year of maturity. Otherwise rogue states could just lower the age of maturity to an irresponsible level. Perhaps it should say that primary education should go from 1/10 to 2/10 of the average age of the specific race.

Third, however you get the definition right, I'm curious as to how this proposal would affect critical thinking or epistemology, such as the compulsory 'Theory of Knowledge' element of the International Diploma our students study. Even in our rabidly secularist nation, our teachers recognise it as nonsense not to discuss beliefs comparatively. This is nothing compared to the challenge our children when deciding to study either the history of religion, or the history of science, but not both.The resolution does not completely prohibit science and religion from being taught in the same course. The very section where you got this idea provides a way to do that. If a nation is going to provide a hybrid class, then they must provide two distinct alternative classes -- one about religion, and one about science -- in addition to the hybrid class, for their students to decide between.
Most of this proposal is something I feel should be decided by each nation. Why does your feeling trump mine?

-- Samantha Benson
Because I'm the one writing the proposal, Ambassador Benson. I've given up trying to appease every complaint about science and religion. The current revision provides all possible options. The only way to end all debates is to remove science and religion completely, and I hardly feel that that's a better option.

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

Updated accordingly, as an excuse to bring this topic back to everybody's attention. With the WA Counterterrorism resolution passed, I'm hoping that we can submit this soon.

ACKNOWLEDGING that many member nations lack an organized educational system, either by choice or otherwise,

REALIZING that education promotes economic and social growth,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE 'education' as the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the abilities of reasoning and judgment, and to generally prepare oneself or others for mature life.
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.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by any means deemed appropriate.

III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education:
a) SUCH a standard for primary education shall consist of literature, composition, mathematics, history, and either science or religion, – or both -- per article III, sections d and e, that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) DEFINING literature as the reading and analyzing of acceptable publications of each separate WA member nation; composition as the systems of writing of the WA member nation; mathematics as the principles of numbers and their relations; history as the series of significant events, documents, and people of the WA member nation; science as the universally accepted laws that govern the universe; and religion as a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things.
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 science courses, and substitute such courses for religious teaching, given that the WA member nation provides a state-sponsored religion.
f) PROHIBITS the teaching of science and religion in the same course, unless alternative courses are offered in both religion and science.

IV) MANDATE that all WA member nations make education, as defined under this Act, readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of high-level brain activity.

V) MANDATE that financial aid for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, given that the nation falls under one or more qualifications listed below:
a) the nation is unable to fiscally meet the requirements of this Act, after instituting every possible fund-raising operation, within the means of maintaining economic stability, or
b) the nation has no existing educational system or infrastructure.
ALSO MANDATE that funding be limited to:
c) the procurement of educational supplies, including, but not limited to, textbooks, writing utilities, literature, and technologies;
d) the construction of educational facilities, specific to primary education.
e) the retrofitting of existing primary education facilities to comply with article IV.

VI) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid.

Co-authored by Wachichi.

Then we should change the resolution to define the years of primary education as a fraction of the whole life, instead of a fraction of time until year of maturity. Otherwise rogue states could just lower the age of maturity to an irresponsible level. Perhaps it should say that primary education should go from 1/10 to 2/10 of the average age of the specific race.
I believe that most of us are happy with the current age requirements, so I do not feel the need to change them, especially to "1/10-1/5 the 'average age' of the specific race", which is boiling over with potential proposal-crushing arguments.

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

The resolution does not completely prohibit science and religion from being taught in the same course. The very section where you got this idea provides a way to do that. If a nation is going to provide a hybrid class, then they must provide two distinct alternative classes -- one about religion, and one about science -- in addition to the hybrid class, for their students to decide between.
Haha. I'm guessing your parents paid for you to attend a private school? And for every nation that does have the somewhat astonishing resources that would be required to run three separate classes to suit individual student tastes, there is a nation that doesn't even have enough money to build schools in the first place. In terms of education funding, surely the priority should be physically constructing schools and paying teachers for the very basics of literacy and numeracy, not providing three separate courses in the social sciences.

Look, I don't necessarily oppose your pursuit of a radical conservative religious approach to legislation, but when it comes to education that is a step too far. By asking students to choose between science and religion (as though learning about the two were diametrically opposed) you are condemning potentially billions of children to the darkness of ignorance.

And you have still not explained how it would be possible to teach a comprehensive history course without encompassing both science and religion. Would you also like for us to teach three separate history courses, one each in race, class, and gender, and not permit any intermixing? Perhaps we should require students to choose between studying nouns OR verbs?
Because I'm the one writing the proposal, Ambassador Benson. I've given up trying to appease every complaint about science and religion. The current revision provides all possible options.
No. It. Doesn't. Most nations will not be able to afford to provide all the courses, and as such will have to resort to segregation. You are, literally, legislatively requiring the international segregation of children based on their parents' religious views. How would you feel if I introduced a proposal requiring the children of communists be taught in separate classrooms, or that only white children could learn geography?
The only way to end all debates is to remove science and religion completely, and I hardly feel that that's a better option.
Of course it is! That's a much, much better approach. I'm not saying the WA should never address the issue, but it should do so in a proposal where there is the character space to give the issue the sensitive deliberation it would require.

If you insist on addressing science and religion, then I insist you add a clause concerning non-religious doctrine, for example, Lysenkoism.

Still waiting for an answer on sex education, by the way.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Haha. I'm guessing your parents paid for you to attend a private school? And for every nation that does have the somewhat astonishing resources that would be required to run three separate classes to suit individual student tastes, there is a nation that doesn't even have enough money to build schools in the first place. In terms of education funding, surely the priority should be physically constructing schools and paying teachers for the very basics of literacy and numeracy, not providing three separate courses in the social sciences.

Look, I don't necessarily oppose your pursuit of a radical conservative religious approach to legislation, but when it comes to education that is a step too far. By asking students to choose between science and religion (as though learning about the two were diametrically opposed) you are condemning potentially billions of children to the darkness of ignorance.

And you have still not explained how it would be possible to teach a comprehensive history course without encompassing both science and religion. Would you also like for us to teach three separate history courses, one each in race, class, and gender, and not permit any intermixing? Perhaps we should require students to choose between studying nouns OR verbs?

No. It. Doesn't. Most nations will not be able to afford to provide all the courses, and as such will have to resort to segregation. You are, literally, legislatively requiring the international segregation of children based on their parents' religious views. How would you feel if I introduced a proposal requiring the children of communists be taught in separate classrooms, or that only white children could learn geography?

Of course it is! That's a much, much better approach. I'm not saying the WA should never address the issue, but it should do so in a proposal where there is the character space to give the issue the sensitive deliberation it would require.

If you insist on addressing science and religion, then I insist you add a clause concerning non-religious doctrine, for example, Lysenkoism.

Still waiting for an answer on sex education, by the way.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

"... Pursuit of a radical conservative religious approach to legislation"? Really, Ambassador? I am hardly conservative, and even less religious. The same goes for the nation I am representing here. If you had bothered to read over the past debate of my previous proposals on this topic, you would have the understanding that I vehemently opposed including religion in any aspect. Furthermore, if you had bothered to read my bio in the World Assembly database, you would know that I attended public school, and wouldn't be making an ass of yourself in trying to insult me, Ambassador Benson.

Your major malfunction is that your nation obviously had poor reading comprehension classes, because you fail to understand even the most simplest of ideas. Either that, or you're willfully ignorant. No nation is forced to teach religion if they don't want to. No nation is forced to teach science if they don't want to. I don't know how more clear you need it to be. Furthermore, I have explained completely how a nation would be able to teach a comprehensive history class: teach a class with both religion and science, teach a class with just religion, and teach a class with just science. If you cannot afford it, the General Fund will pay for you. I also already addressed sex education.

I refuse to be diplomatic with you any longer, Ambassador. You crossed the line when silly, immature segregationist allegations were flung around.

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

In reading this over again, I am concerned with one thing. Perhaps I overlooked it or misread something, but, I'm questioning whether or not private schools must comply with this. There's nothing in there that's really making it clear to me.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

In reading this over again, I am concerned with one thing. Perhaps I overlooked it or misread something, but, I'm questioning whether or not private schools must comply with this. There's nothing in there that's really making it clear to me.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

You are correct. Private schools are not mentioned, but it is unclear if they are exempt. In Glen-Rhodes, at least, private schools often operate under religious institutions, since religion is barred from government. They are optional for students, and self-sufficient, in that they receive zero funding from the government. In a sense, they are given certain liberties because they are not a "burden" (to put it harshly) on the budget.

I am uncertain of whether or not you want private schools to be included in this legislation. If you reply with an answer, then I will consider it. As it stands, the legislation makes no differentiation between private and public schools, but I intended on it only being for public schools.

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

"... Pursuit of a radical conservative religious approach to legislation"? Really, Ambassador? I am hardly conservative, and even less religious. The same goes for the nation I am representing here. If you had bothered to read over the past debate of my previous proposals on this topic, you would have the understanding that I vehemently opposed including religion in any aspect. Furthermore, if you had bothered to read my bio in the World Assembly database, you would know that I attended public school, and wouldn't be making an ass of yourself in trying to insult me, Ambassador Benson.
Amusing, given you would know, had you read my bio, that I am not an ambassador.

Nonetheless, I retract my assertion that you are pursuing a religious agenda. Instead, it is now clear that you are simply spineless, and caving to the pressure of extremists. A whore still uses the missionary position.

Your proposal permits nations to reject scientific teaching. How more craven could you be? What other concessions to nations that force religion upon their subjects are to be made: are we to permit them to enforce sumptuary codes, prohibit abortion, require public tests of faith, have court cases decided by trial by ordeal? By design, the WA cannot require the abolition of theocracy. So be it. But need we, to put it crudely, also bend over? All children should be permitted to learn at least some rudiments of science. Maybe this proposal doesn't ban science; but in permitting nations to ban science, the same effect is reached.

Furthermore, setting aside the issue of whether every aspect of 'science' is compatible with 'religion', there are surely many that are. Indeed, your own proposal defines science as 'universally accepted'. How, then, can its teaching be excluded? If, to pick an obvious example, the mechanics of plate tectonics are universally accepted, they would also be accepted in theocracies; if they are not, this proposal doesn't apply to them.

Yet even a better definition of science would still not obviate my argument that all children deserve to learn at least some science. If you insist on tackling the topic in this proposal - and I still don't understand why you're unwilling to split it to a separate one - then can't you at least some things, such as 'the scientific method', or 'how electric circuits work', or 'what constitutes an element', or 'the difference between a plant and an animal' are of such basic import to studying the world that any child reaching maturity without such knowledge would be severely stunted, no matter their religious persuasion? What is so hurtful to religious children about teaching them that acid + base = salt + water? Or is sodium hydroxide now haram?
Your major malfunction is that your nation obviously had poor reading comprehension classes, because you fail to understand even the most simplest of ideas. Either that, or you're willfully ignorant.
Eek, kitty got claws! But no, I didn't do reading comprehension classes; I studied law, and it's on that basis I'm decrying this proposal as bad law. Nice idea, and I'd really like the WA to promote education - our nation was a leading sponsor of education initiatives in the old UN - but this is not the right approach.
No nation is forced to teach science if they don't want to.
They should be.
Furthermore, I have explained completely how a nation would be able to teach a comprehensive history class: teach a class with both religion and science, teach a class with just religion, and teach a class with just science. If you cannot afford it, the General Fund will pay for you.
Don't you think there are better things for the by no means infinite General Fund to be paying for, like pencils? You have not demonstrated that teaching a humanities course describing both religious and scientific thought is undesirable. Nor, for that matter, have you answered my concern about political doctrines. Nor have you proven your division to be accurate.

And even all this nit-picking still lies beneath my most fundamental objection. Do you not think there might be at least some social value in educational intermixing? That having children of different faiths, and of no faith, that having young people for the first time making up their minds about what they believe, mixing with other young people of different perspectives, might have an educational benefit that outweighs any test score? You recoil at being dubbed a 'segregationist', but that is exactly what you're espousing. That the division is enacted on religious lines makes it no less socially egregious than were it enacted on any lines.

If children grow up in cotton balls insulated from the possibility of opposition thought, they will be traumatised by their encounters with the real world once they grow out of their cocoon. If they are confronted with a variety of viewpoints, their own views will develop with depth and maturity.
I also already addressed sex education.
Nope. You just said you didn't 'feel' it was right to address. I countered that I did 'feel' it right, and the conversation went no further.

Presumably you don't deny the social importance of sex education? In which case, why is learning how not to get pregnant or contract a disease, learning what is happening to one's own body, less important than learning science?

(The above assuming one lives in a nation that actually permits the teaching of science. Hmm, I wonder if there's a correlation...)

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

You are correct. Private schools are not mentioned, but it is unclear if they are exempt. In Glen-Rhodes, at least, private schools often operate under religious institutions, since religion is barred from government. They are optional for students, and self-sufficient, in that they receive zero funding from the government. In a sense, they are given certain liberties because they are not a "burden" (to put it harshly) on the budget.

I am uncertain of whether or not you want private schools to be included in this legislation. If you reply with an answer, then I will consider it. As it stands, the legislation makes no differentiation between private and public schools, but I intended on it only being for public schools.

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

Rutianas would prefer that it only be for public schools. We do not have private schools, but from what we understand, some private schools do not wish to have certain classes in place. From the science and religion standpoint, we have heard of some religious private schools that teach about the dangers of science. I'm not sure they'd be happy about being told what they can and can't teach. Based on my knowledge of education, private schools teach what the parents want their children to learn and since the parents are paying the money, the schools listen. There's no reason to mess with that.

You may wish to make it clear that it's intended to affect public schools only.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

QoD's arguments highlight, in many ways, what I have been trying to say: keep it simple, think about what the real minimums should be, think about what is going to be useful in every circumstance, and leave the rest up to the nations. Why faff around worrying about science versus religion when you could easily solve it by not mentioning it, and leave it up to nations to decide. Why say:

III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education:
a) SUCH a standard for primary education shall consist of literature, composition, mathematics, history, and either science or religion, – or both -- per article III, sections d and e, that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) DEFINING literature as the reading and analyzing of acceptable publications of each separate WA member nation; composition as the systems of writing of the WA member nation; mathematics as the principles of numbers and their relations; history as the series of significant events, documents, and people of the WA member nation; science as the universally accepted laws that govern the universe; and religion as a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things.
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 science courses, and substitute such courses for religious teaching, given that the WA member nation provides a state-sponsored religion.
f) PROHIBITS the teaching of science and religion in the same course, unless alternative courses are offered in both religion and science.

When one could easily say:


MANDATES that all children in primary eduction be educated to a reasonable standard of literacy and numeracy

Secondly, if you are going to restrict this only to state funded schools (which, if you take my above advice, won't be neccessary), don't use the term "public school". It means something very different in countries with a British-based educational system. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_school_(UK))

Rutianas would prefer that it only be for public schools. We do not have private schools, but from what we understand, some private schools do not wish to have certain classes in place. From the science and religion standpoint, we have heard of some religious private schools that teach about the dangers of science. I'm not sure they'd be happy about being told what they can and can't teach. Based on my knowledge of education, private schools teach what the parents want their children to learn and since the parents are paying the money, the schools listen. There's no reason to mess with that.

You may wish to make it clear that it's intended to affect public schools only.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador


If this resolution does not deal with private schools, respected Ambassador, then a member nation will retain the right to regulate such institutions as it currently sees fit. If a member state has no problem with parents paying to have their children be miseducated or if it holds its fee paying schools to the same standard as its publicly funded institutions then this will continue.

Frankly we see no reason to interfere in this situation.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Amusing, given you would know, had you read my bio, that I am not an ambassador.

Nonetheless, I retract my assertion that you are pursuing a religious agenda. Instead, it is now clear that you are simply spineless, and caving to the pressure of extremists. A whore still uses the missionary position.

Your proposal permits nations to reject scientific teaching. How more craven could you be? What other concessions to nations that force religion upon their subjects are to be made: are we to permit them to enforce sumptuary codes, prohibit abortion, require public tests of faith, have court cases decided by trial by ordeal? By design, the WA cannot require the abolition of theocracy. So be it. But need we, to put it crudely, also bend over? All children should be permitted to learn at least some rudiments of science. Maybe this proposal doesn't ban science; but in permitting nations to ban science, the same effect is reached.

Furthermore, setting aside the issue of whether every aspect of 'science' is compatible with 'religion', there are surely many that are. Indeed, your own proposal defines science as 'universally accepted'. How, then, can its teaching be excluded? If, to pick an obvious example, the mechanics of plate tectonics are universally accepted, they would also be accepted in theocracies; if they are not, this proposal doesn't apply to them.

Yet even a better definition of science would still not obviate my argument that all children deserve to learn at least some science. If you insist on tackling the topic in this proposal - and I still don't understand why you're unwilling to split it to a separate one - then can't you at least some things, such as 'the scientific method', or 'how electric circuits work', or 'what constitutes an element', or 'the difference between a plant and an animal' are of such basic import to studying the world that any child reaching maturity without such knowledge would be severely stunted, no matter their religious persuasion? What is so hurtful to religious children about teaching them that acid + base = salt + water? Or is sodium hydroxide now haram?

Eek, kitty got claws! But no, I didn't do reading comprehension classes; I studied law, and it's on that basis I'm decrying this proposal as bad law. Nice idea, and I'd really like the WA to promote education - our nation was a leading sponsor of education initiatives in the old UN - but this is not the right approach.

They should be.

Don't you think there are better things for the by no means infinite General Fund to be paying for, like pencils? You have not demonstrated that teaching a humanities course describing both religious and scientific thought is undesirable. Nor, for that matter, have you answered my concern about political doctrines. Nor have you proven your division to be accurate.

And even all this nit-picking still lies beneath my most fundamental objection. Do you not think there might be at least some social value in educational intermixing? That having children of different faiths, and of no faith, that having young people for the first time making up their minds about what they believe, mixing with other young people of different perspectives, might have an educational benefit that outweighs any test score? You recoil at being dubbed a 'segregationist', but that is exactly what you're espousing. That the division is enacted on religious lines makes it no less socially egregious than were it enacted on any lines.

If children grow up in cotton balls insulated from the possibility of opposition thought, they will be traumatised by their encounters with the real world once they grow out of their cocoon. If they are confronted with a variety of viewpoints, their own views will develop with depth and maturity.

Nope. You just said you didn't 'feel' it was right to address. I countered that I did 'feel' it right, and the conversation went no further.

Presumably you don't deny the social importance of sex education? In which case, why is learning how not to get pregnant or contract a disease, learning what is happening to one's own body, less important than learning science?

(The above assuming one lives in a nation that actually permits the teaching of science. Hmm, I wonder if there's a correlation...)

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria



The respected Ms. Benson is in fact making valid points which the honoured Ambassador for Glen Rhodes might do well to bear in mind. However the reasons Ms. Benson makes these points and the way she makes them have completely ulterior motives.

By her own admission Ms. Benson is someone who merely happens to work at her nation's mission and would do well to remember that it is only the politeness of the Ambassadors to this organisation which accepts her right to reprimand those of higher grade and superior responsibility than her. Certainly her mission should expect that unless their Ambassador is speaking for them that their position on any topic will be concurrently less authoritative.

Of course it is no accident the the honoured and esteemed delegation of Quintessence of Dust chooses to send a didactic functionary to this debate. It has been their aim in fact to obfuscate, to create controversy and consternation and not to offer truly constructive criticism in order to retard the progress of this bill. This can only be because Ms. Benson's delegation believes it is the only delegation qualified to write a resolution on education. Indeed we would not be surprised to find that the honoured delegation of Quintessence of Dust's territoriality in this area had led them to expedite the process of writing an alternative resolution to this one which they would doubtless consider superior in every regard.

This attitude and strategy is evidenced by the honoured Ms. Benson's displays of naked contempt for the honoured Ambassador for Glen Rhodes and all their endeavours in writing this resolution. Indeed Ms. Benson has attempted to smear the respected Ambassador for Glen Rhodes with erroneous accusations of religious extremism, in fact she has insulted other Ambassadors who may have had the temerity to involve themselves in the writing of this kind of statute in other debates which were the predecessors of this one.

Doubtless the honoured Ambassador for Glen Rhodes has been deeply un-diplomatic in some of their responses to Ms. Benson's interventions and should certainly try to be more patient with her, because in reacting as they have done they have in fact played directly into Ms. Benson's hands.

The impression that this resolution is in some way fundamentally flawed and controversial is exactly the impression Ms. Benson wishes to create ( that is if she cannot completely dissuade the honoured delegation of Glen Rhodes from their work altogether ) in order that the ground is prepared for opposition to it should it precede to submission and vote. Long term it is even possible that the respected Ms. Benson is creating the grounds of any putative repeal arguments ( a repeal which would doubtless be the prelude to the introduction of her delegation's statutory efforts in this field ).

The respected Ms. Benson has made valuable points but in such a way as to make them completely unpalatable, the honoured Ambassador for Glen Rhodes would do well to heed some of what she has said, not just because what she has said is useful but because ignoring it now will mean having to refute it at more crucial points in the progress of this statute when it will doubtless be made with as much withering contempt as Ms. Benson is accustomed to employing against the respected Ambassadors to this organisation.

By the way, I notice that III.d has reverted to allowing nations to ditch religious classes and have science classes in their place, but only if they have a state religion. Isn't it wonderful what a one-word change can do.

I am still, for the record, vehemently opposed to this wrong-headed approach to teaching.

By the way, I notice that III.d has reverted to allowing nations to ditch religious classes and have science classes in their place, but only if they have a state religion. Isn't it wonderful what a one-word change can do.

I am still, for the record, vehemently opposed to this wrong-headed approach to teaching.


Indeed we agree with the incomparable Ambassador Coch, much of this statute remains inchoate and ill-directed, but we think this statute shows promise and its authors must be commended for their commitment to this issue and there emerging ability to absorb good advice.

Yours e.t.c. ,

MANDATES that all children in primary eduction be educated to a reasonable standard of literacy and numeracy To which one will undoubtedly reply: How?
One of the earliest forms of this proposal was not so nearly in-depth as this current revision, I should let you know. It has been that process of being asked "how?" and answering, that has led to the current article III, which I understand is hard to comprehend. However, the numerous explanations I have given are ample examples to understand the article.

By the way, I notice that III.d has reverted to allowing nations to ditch religious classes and have science classes in their place, but only if they have a state religion. Isn't it wonderful what a one-word change can do.The affect of night-time writing and an ambiguous case of English, I'm blaming. Considering that the correct substitution clause follows the pattern "X substitutes for Y; therefore, Y is replaced by X", you are correct. The "slight" wording error has been fixed in the latest revision.

The other revision made has been in limiting the proposal to public schools only. The wording was chosen quickly, so don't be too harsh. Propose other wordings, if you'd like.

ACKNOWLEDGING that many member nations lack an organized educational system, either by choice or otherwise,

REALIZING that education promotes economic and social growth,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE 'education' as the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the abilities of reasoning and judgment, and to generally prepare oneself or others for mature life.
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.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by any means deemed appropriate.

III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education, affecting all government-funded, or otherwise publicly owned or operated primary education systems:
a) SUCH a standard for primary education shall consist of literature, composition, mathematics, history, and either science or religion, – or both -- per article III, sections d and e, that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) DEFINING literature as the reading and analyzing of acceptable publications of each separate WA member nation; composition as the systems of writing of the WA member nation; mathematics as the principles of numbers and their relations; history as the series of significant events, documents, and people of the WA member nation; science as the universally accepted laws that govern the universe; and religion as a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things.
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 science courses, and substitute religious teaching for such courses, given that the WA member nation provides a state-sponsored religion.
f) PROHIBITS the teaching of science and religion in the same course, unless alternative courses are offered in both religion and science.

IV) MANDATE that all WA member nations make education, as defined under this Act, readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of high-level brain activity.

V) MANDATE that financial aid for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, given that the nation falls under one or more qualifications listed below:
a) the nation is unable to fiscally meet the requirements of this Act, after instituting every possible fund-raising operation, within the means of maintaining economic stability, or
b) the nation has no existing educational system or infrastructure.
ALSO MANDATE that funding be limited to:
c) the procurement of educational supplies, including, but not limited to, textbooks, writing utilities, literature, and technologies;
d) the construction of educational facilities, specific to primary education.
e) the retrofitting of existing primary education facilities to comply with article IV.

VI) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid.

Co-authored by Wachichi.

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

To which one will undoubtedly reply: How?
One of the earliest forms of this proposal was not so nearly in-depth as this current revision, I should let you know. It has been that process of being asked "how?" and answering, that has led to the current article III, which I understand is hard to comprehend. However, the numerous explanations I have given are ample examples to understand the article.

The correct response to that question is, "However you see fit."

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Indeed; plus, if one factors in the fact that WA resolutions are binding, unavoidable, and automatically come into effect, there is no need to know how. It just happens. It's why I never going into the details of how stuff should be done (indeed, I prefer to avoid details via commitification), because it will just be done. Therefore, the question is "Why the How?"

So all Resolutions must simply be shopping lists of requirements honoured Ambassador? Perhaps interspersed with meaningless exhortations and urgings ?

Yours e.t.c. ,

Instead of sniping at my level of seniority, or casting - utterly wrongheaded - aspersions about my 'motives', how about addressing the substance of my argument, Mongkha. Criticising the way my nation organizes its diplomatic mission is not going to help children learn to read.

-- Samantha Benson

Instead of sniping at my level of seniority, or casting - utterly wrongheaded - aspersions about my 'motives', how about addressing the substance of my argument, Mongkha. Criticising the way my nation organizes its diplomatic mission is not going to help children learn to read.

-- Samantha Benson


As the respected Ms. Benson knows well, we do not dissent from her her arguments. Indeed we have urged the respected Ambassador for Glen Rhodes to listen carefully to whatMs. Benson has said. We agree that the teaching of science and religion are not mutually exclusive of eachother and that presuming such an antipathy in this resolution is needless and distorting. We also agree that teaching of these subjects should not seek to create the impression of either being superior to the other as methods of understanding the universe per se. We would be as appalled as the honoured Ms. Benson if this resolution allowed member states to ban the teaching of science or religion.


We should say that the respected Ms. Benson is the one who is most at pains to point out her actual level of seniority to others. Hence we thought it necessary to make it clear that in doing so she undermines the possible gravity of her mission's contribution. We would not expect the honoured Ambassadors to this organisation to treat the pronouncments of the assistant to his Excellency Khan Mongkha or our missions military attache as equal to our Ambassador's. There would be little point in sending an Ambassador here were that the case.

Yours e.t.c. ,

III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education:
a) SUCH a standard for primary education shall consist of literature, composition, mathematics, history, and either science or religion, – or both -- per article III, sections d and e, that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) DEFINING literature as the reading and analyzing of acceptable publications of each separate WA member nation; composition as the systems of writing of the WA member nation; mathematics as the principles of numbers and their relations; history as the series of significant events, documents, and people of the WA member nation; science as the universally accepted laws that govern the universe; and religion as a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things.
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 science courses, and substitute such courses for religious teaching, given that the WA member nation provides a state-sponsored religion.
f) PROHIBITS the teaching of science and religion in the same course, unless alternative courses are offered in both religion and science.
There is simply no need for this level of micromanagement. It isn't necessary to define what literature, composition, mathematics and history are. Further the whole science/religion, or science and no religion, or religion but no science, or science and religion taught simultaneously but with separate courses in (only)science and (only)religion is just silly. Drop the definitions and don't even mention religion.

Do something like the Cobdenian delegation suggested. They're sensible lads and never fail to offer sound advice.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

To an extent we agree with the respected Ambassador for New Leicestershire, the definitions are cumbersome. But we are anxious that this resolution not regress to the nightmare of standardised testing and w.a. averages that was this draft's ancestor. This is why we have always urged that this resolution should take a sensible approach to insuring minimum levels of funding for education and teaching and helping poorer nations to meet these.

Yours e.t.c. ,

To which one will undoubtedly reply: How?
Well, there's this approach commonly called "teaching"...

One of the earliest forms of this proposal was not so nearly in-depth as this current revision, I should let you know. It has been that process of being asked "how?" and answering, that has led to the current article III, which I understand is hard to comprehend. However, the numerous explanations I have given are ample examples to understand the article.
I comprehend article III just fine. I comprehend that it contains perverse definitions as well as an implicit assumption of the divisibility of education that Gobbannaen educators rejected a decade ago.

The affect of night-time writing and an ambiguous case of English, I'm blaming.
Night-time writing is a perfectly reasonable excuse, I've done it often enough. The English wasn't ambiguous in the slightest, though; "Substitute for" and "substitute with" are entirely standard.

The other revision made has been in limiting the proposal to public schools only. The wording was chosen quickly, so don't be too harsh. Propose other wordings, if you'd like.
Lovely. Another clause that couldn't do more to undermine our education system if it was designed to. Why do privately-owned educational establishments get a carte blanche here? What possible reason is there for not holding them to exactly the same standards as publicly-run schools?

To an extent we agree with the respected Ambassador for New Leicestershire, the definitions are cumbersome. But we are anxious that this resolution not regress to the nightmare of standardised testing and w.a. averages that was this draft's ancestor. This is why we have always urged that this resolution should take a sensible approach to insuring minimum levels of funding for education and teaching and helping poorer nations to meet these.

Yours e.t.c. ,

I do understand where your coming from, but mandating minimum levels of funding would be tricky (quite apart from GM problems). Personally, I feel that by not going inot such details, it gives broader scope for technological differences, and various approaches to getting children to such a standard. For example, it may be the culture that parents teach there kids everything (thereby cost the government nothing), a future tech nation may dispense with teaching altogether and inject Electronic Brain Enhancers into one's noggin. Keeping it simply to the three R's also has benefits for everyone, unlike science, religion or history, which are going to be of little use to someone in a sustainable farming culture, and keeps it relevent to things that are useful in everyday life, such as reading the instructions on your Ikea flatpack, mental arithmatic when shopping, writing a shopping list, or, if you can fly, calculating your trajectory to work...

I do understand where your coming from, but mandating minimum levels of funding would be tricky (quite apart from GM problems). Personally, I feel that by not going inot such details, it gives broader scope for technological differences, and various approaches to getting children to such a standard. For example, it may be the culture that parents teach there kids everything (thereby cost the government nothing), a future tech nation may dispense with teaching altogether and inject Electronic Brain Enhancers into one's noggin. Keeping it simply to the three R's also has benefits for everyone, unlike science, religion or history, which are going to be of little use to someone in a sustainable farming culture, and keeps it relevent to things that are useful in everyday life, such as reading the instructions on your Ikea flatpack, mental arithmatic when shopping, writing a shopping list, or, if you can fly, calculating your trajectory to work...


This pre-supposes that the only expectations a citizen of a w.a. member state should have are a life of ignorant farm labour, or building cheap Swedish mass produced furniture after organised shopping with the few shekels allotted them by a consumerist wage slave economy.


In any case far be it for us to contradict the sound advice of those "sensible lads" of the great nation of Cobdenia who's eminence we respect absolutely.

The Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench already has a system of education which surpasses that outlined in this resolution or the "keep it simple" approaches suggested by other respected Ambassadors, all we will continue to ask of the respected Ambassador for Glen Rhodes is a commitment that whatever form this resolution may take it will allow states with education systems with measurably superior outcomes for the life quality of their citizens be allowed to keep these systems intact.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Lovely. Another clause that couldn't do more to undermine our education system if it was designed to. Why do privately-owned educational establishments get a carte blanche here? What possible reason is there for not holding them to exactly the same standards as publicly-run schools?The purpose of the average privately-owned school is to teach children was their parents deem acceptable. In many cases, this is a largely religious teaching, or some other largely discriminate teaching. For this, the parents pay substantial sums of money. I am not too eager to destroy the foundations of the private school market, by instituting international legislation that affects a somewhat sacred alternative education. While this act may give these private institutions leniency in standards requirements, the only alternative -- one that doesn't inhibit their foundations -- is to set standards in the form of those suggested by the ancestor of this legislation. I might remind you that those standards were not so popular.

ACKNOWLEDGING that many member nations lack an organized educational system, either by choice or otherwise,

REALIZING that education promotes economic and social growth,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE 'education' as the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the abilities of reasoning and judgment, and to generally prepare oneself or others for mature life.
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.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by any means deemed appropriate.

III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education, affecting all government-funded, or otherwise publicly owned or operated primary education systems:
a) SUCH a standard for primary education shall consist of reading, writing, arithmetic, and history, that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) 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.

IV) MANDATE that all WA member nations make education, as defined under this Act, readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of high-level brain activity.

V) MANDATE that financial aid for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, given that the nation falls under one or more qualifications listed below:
a) the nation is unable to fiscally meet the requirements of this Act, after instituting every possible fund-raising operation, within the means of maintaining economic stability, or
b) the nation has no existing educational system or infrastructure.
ALSO MANDATE that funding be limited to:
c) the procurement of educational supplies, including, but not limited to, textbooks, writing utilities, literature, and technologies;
d) the construction of educational facilities, specific to primary education.
e) the retrofitting of existing primary education facilities to comply with article IV.

VI) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid.

Co-authored by Wachichi.
This is the revision suggested over the past several days, from removing science and religion altogether, to regressing to the "three Rs". I personally feel that it's lost a great deal of its greatness. While defining the courses was cumbersome, not defining them introduces several ways for governments to not increase their education standards. It mandates reading, but not understanding and applying what you've read. It mandates writing, but that can mean as little as learning how to write the alphabet. It mandates arithmetic, but any kindergartner can do calculations without understanding how they work. Most strikingly, however, it doesn't mandate science, since there's apparently no way in the seven seas to please the scientist and the reverend.

Responses encouraged.

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

The purpose of the average privately-owned school is to teach children was their parents deem acceptable. In many cases, this is a largely religious teaching, or some other largely discriminate teaching. For this, the parents pay substantial sums of money.
So money can buy you an exception from international law? I'm amazed, Dr Castro; every day you find new ways to make me more apalled at this draft.

We must say we tend to agree with the incomparable Ambassador Coch, we do not see private education as sacrosanct and beyond the scope of regulation by this organisation.

Yours e.t.c. ,

So money can buy you an exception from international law? I'm amazed, Dr Castro; every day you find new ways to make me more apalled at this draft.
It is not buying exception if there is no international law, Ms. Coch. Parents pay for a specialized service, if they are not satisfied with public education. One should be able to draw from that, that forcing this specialized service to do the same thing as public education is rather illogical. If a nation wants private schools to be under the same scrutiny, then they can enact national legislation on their own. Glen-Rhodes, for one, does not need another religious uprising.

On a side note, I'm rather discouraged that not a single one of you has remarked on the obvious criticism I have given, in regards to the previous "revision".

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

It is not buying exception if there is no international law, Ms. Coch. Parents pay for a specialized service, if they are not satisfied with public education. One should be able to draw from that, that forcing this specialized service to do the same thing as public education is rather illogical. If a nation wants private schools to be under the same scrutiny, then they can enact national legislation on their own. Glen-Rhodes, for one, does not need another religious uprising.

On a side note, I'm rather discouraged that not a single one of you has remarked on the obvious criticism I have given, in regards to the previous "revision".

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


You need not be so discouraged respected Ambassador, but perhaps a little more patient. We are as disappointed as you are that the "keep it simple" lobby seems to have prevailed and that generations of citizens of w.a. member states may well continue to be kept simple.

The weight of opinion seems to be against actual improvement.

Yours e.t.c. ,

It is not buying exception if there is no international law, Ms. Coch.
Please, spare me the sophistry.

Glen-Rhodes, for one, does not need another religious uprising.
Which should, all on its own, suggest to you that your previous approach might just be very wrong indeed.

On a side note, I'm rather discouraged that not a single one of you has remarked on the obvious criticism I have given, in regards to the previous "revision".
Since you asked so nicely, I'd rather that your definitions were absent than wrong. I'd also note that while there are many ways to please the scientist and the reverend -- I'm neither, by the way -- what you appeared to be dead set on doing was really hacking off the reverend scientist.

Please, spare me the sophistry.

Since you asked so nicely, I'd rather that your definitions were absent than wrong. I'd also note that while there are many ways to please the scientist and the reverend -- I'm neither, by the way -- what you appeared to be dead set on doing was really hacking off the reverend scientist.

Spare me the "what ifs" and unsubstantiated assumptions, then, Ms. Coch. Private schools will not be mandated by this resolution. If a nation wants them to be, then they can write their own legislation -- legislation tailor-made for how their own private schools work.

I will also be keeping the definitions, and the science-religion set up. The definitions of subjects are, indeed, what I have intended them to be. The way I have handled science are religion are suitable to all needs, while still remaining fair to all parties. I question why nations such as Quintessence of Dust are in such a fuss over other nations teaching religion and not science, considering that they probably don't interact with said nations, on any level, anyways. The World Assembly is not here to tell people what they can and cannot believe. It is here to diplomatically change the world for the better, one resolution at a time. I refuse to submit to ridiculous accusations, and constant filibusters. The definitions stay; the religion-science set up stays. If any nation has rewording suggestions that they feel makes the proposal easier to understand, than I am, like I have said from the very start, open to those suggestions.

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

Spare me the "what ifs" and unsubstantiated assumptions, then, Ms. Coch. Private schools will not be mandated by this resolution. If a nation wants them to be, then they can write their own legislation -- legislation tailor-made for how their own private schools work.
If you're proposing standards that are universal enough to apply to the education systems of every single nation in the WA, why do they only apply to government run schools? You still haven't given a convincing reply to that which doesn't boil down to your standards not actually being all that universal, and if that's the case you need to fix your standards, not pretend that the private sector can fix everything.

If the honoured Ambassador for Glen Rhodes insists on complete intransigence on the matter of removing the provision covering science and religion, we will likely be unable to support this statute.

Yours e.t.c. ,

I question why nations such as Quintessence of Dust are in such a fuss over other nations teaching religion and not science, considering that they probably don't interact with said nations, on any level, anyways.
'A process of radical indoctrination can lead to radical acts. A state that indoctrinates its children may, deliberately or not, produce terrorists. It may suppress our people when they travel abroad, or stifle our writers and broadcasters. Dissidents may escape and beg us for asylum.'

That's the answer I've been instructed to give by George Madison, our Secretary of State. But I'd like to add one personal reflection:

We want children to learn, no matter what country they're brought up in.
The World Assembly is not here to tell people what they can and cannot believe.
Your proposal permits nations to tell the people what they can and cannot believe, though! You continue to refuse to explain how this is somehow different. To promote religious indoctrination is to promote religious indoctrination, no matter the means.

By the way: given you haven't responded to any of my objections, should I take that as a sign? Or are you going to get around to it soon. If the former, I completely understand and will stop rabbiting on.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

We realize Alector has just applied for membership in the World Assembly, and it is unlikely great and powerful nations will bother to listen to those that are so far beneath them. But as Alector's prospective representative, I feel I must point out the obvious:

Religious indoctrination can be achieved with or without the intervention of the school system, if the government is a theocracy. And religious indoctrination is not the only indoctrination we must fear. Political ideology can be just as much of a threat. Surely Wysteria does not want politics to be kept out of education? Nationalism can be a threat. Should we dictate what version of each nation's history should be taught? Economic theories have been famously made into tools of oppression. The government of Alector fears that more than anything. But can we prevent other nations from indoctrinating with any of these tools, including religion. Of course not. It would be impossible to prevent any of these, even if we had the hubris to try. The only sure way to prevent indoctrination is to increase educational opportunity. It seems that is exactly what this resolution does.

Opposing this resolution would do nothing to prevent religious oppression. In fact, it may alleviate it, as it prohibits the teaching of science and religion in the same course. However, insisting that nations be preventing from emphasizing religious education at all, even if it led to indoctrination would only ensure severe opposition to this from such nations. And their children would not get the funds and supplies this proposal promises. Perhaps their children are the ones that need it the most. I do not want to speak for Dr. Castro or the Glen-Rhodes Commonwealth, but it seems to me that was the intention of the proposal, to get much needed supplies to primary school children.

It also seems to me some are allowing their opposition to religious education to cloud their judgment whether it indoctrinates or not. Ideology is winning over practicality. Alector does not support religious education, save in the home or in the church. There is a firm separation between religion and state. But we recognize other countries do not support that, and respect their right to do so. Are their children less worthy of education? Or does religious intolerance win out over the right to a quality education?

For whatever it's worth, if the humble nation of Alector is granted admission into the WA, and if this resolution comes to a vote, we will support it in its current form.

Orion Morel
Representative of the Federation of Alector

We realize Alector has just applied for membership in the World Assembly, and it is unlikely great and powerful nations will bother to listen to those that are so far beneath them.
Not at all. It's always a pleasure to engage with new representatives. So, welcome, and I will attempt to respond. (I'll admit this is partly because we have no choice: Dr Castro continues to refuse to respond to my questions and comments, and thus we have to fill the gap while waiting for him to compile what must be a truly epic response.)
Religious indoctrination can be achieved with or without the intervention of the school system, if the government is a theocracy.
True. But this does not mean it should be abetted within the school system.

For example: child abuse can take place within the home. Prohibiting teachers from abusing children will not prevent parents from doing so. But the mere existence of child abuse in the home does not legitimise it within the school. [Note: given debates on religion and debates on child abuse can become very heated rapidly, it's important to stress this is an example, not an equation.]

Furthermore, we posit that the school should lie within the 'public sphere', a space in which discourse and enquiry are promoted, not stifled. Within any particularly oppressive theocracy, the public sphere is likely to have a severely diminished role; all the more important, then, to eke out this one small corner in which freedom can breathe.
And religious indoctrination is not the only indoctrination we must fear. Political ideology can be just as much of a threat. Surely Wysteria does not want politics to be kept out of education?
Firstly, I should point out that although elected to represent our region, that is largely a nominal position. We vote, but do not wholly speak, for our region, and our comments on this proposal and elsewhere reflect national, not regional, opinions.

Secondly, in one of the many unanswered challenges to this proposal, I have raised the spectre of political indoctrination in the form of Lysenkoism (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14260974&postcount=63). That was one example, and I am aware that there are others. So, as far as possible, we would like education to be a politically neutral space; we return to the idea of a 'public sphere'.
Nationalism can be a threat. Should we dictate what version of each nation's history should be taught?
The very fact that these issues are being raised surely demonstrates just how complex an issue this is and as such how perverse it is to single out religion for special promotion and protection. Our proposed solution is not, as you suggest, to get further into the intricacies of syllabus content, but rather to eliminate all discussion of religious education within this proposal.
But can we prevent other nations from indoctrinating with any of these tools, including religion. Of course not. It would be impossible to prevent any of these, even if we had the hubris to try.
I agree. But you are creating a false dichotomy, opposing 'prevent' and 'permit'. There is, at least, one other option available: to 'mitigate'.
The only sure way to prevent indoctrination is to increase educational opportunity. It seems that is exactly what this resolution does.
And it seems to us that it is exactly what this proposal does not do: by prohibiting the teaching of science, educational opportunities are decreased.

Furthermore, if the real aim were to increase educational opportunities, then i) the proposal would be universal, not applicable only to public education, and ii) the suggestion that comprehensive sex education be included might at least have been given a moment's thought instead of summarily - and without justification - dismissed.
I do not want to speak for Dr. Castro or the Glen-Rhodes Commonwealth, but it seems to me that was the intention of the proposal, to get much needed supplies to primary school children.
I agree, entirely. So why, if that is the intention of this proposal, is it also dabbling in the content of science courses? Why not base the proposal entirely on the mechanics of funding schools, and worry in a separate, subsequent, proposal about what is taught.

The very fact that this issue is consuming so much attention and - from one side of the debate - discussion time is all the more indicative of the merits of dropping it from the proposal. Instead of wasting days debating the definition of 'religion', why not scrap that aspect and confine the proposal to discussion of improving funding? That way, supplies can be shipped out now to those who need them, and then we can worry about what is taught in separate, subsequent proposals.

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

We must agree with the respected Ms. Benson. If one is to seriously address improving the standards of education across the w.a. one must do so both quantitatively and qualitatively.

In our opinion any statute which would successfully do this would not offer a legalised opportunity to mis-educate or indoctrinate. We are aware that the respected Ambassador for Glen Rhodes is attempting to walk the line between actually improving standards of education and not seeming to be trampling the dearly held beliefs of certain kinds of state. However this has convinced them that universal oppositional relationship exists between theologians and scientists, which may in fact not exist at all. The result is what the respected Ms. Benson characterises as the w.a. aiding and abetting the forces of ignorance and theories of indoctrination which are counter to the principles of a proper education system.

This is why we strongly suggest removing the current wording of this statute which presumes the oppositional relationship between the teaching of science and religion, our suggestion would also be to expand this statute's positive influence in the area of funding and training for teachers, perhaps in this case specified as an increase in proportion of spending on this item in the overall education budget of member states.

As it is we cannot support a statute which would rubber stamp the practice of depriving children of certain kinds of education with the sanction of international law.

Yours e.t.c. ,

(I'll admit this is partly because we have no choice: Dr Castro continues to refuse to respond to my questions and comments, and thus we have to fill the gap while waiting for him to compile what must be a truly epic response.)Not quite an epic response, I would say. I've been rather busy, and replying to the past three discussions has been out of my reach of time.

It really is disheartening that it has come down to removing any and all actual substance from this act, just because one representative is vehement on twisting language to suit their needs to win a rather disgusting argument. Nothing is actually banned in this act. No subject is off-limits. Yet, Ms. Benson seems adamant on spreading the blatant lie that science is both. Ms. Benson also has not let up on false and sophomoric accusations that I am somehow a modern-day segregationist, aiming to oppress science and put religion on a pedestal, based in the single fact that I do not believe that religion should be banned in favor of science. It's rather hypocritical.

I have little faith that any further proposals on the topic of curriculum/education would go any more smoothly than this one has. If it so much as has the word religion in it, Ms. Benson will surely be there to call it perverse, and drag down the legislative process with ridiculous filibusters. In the end, I would imagine that it would take a proposal for each subject, with the exclusion of religion (actually, we'd probably have to out-right ban it), to ensure that the substance of this proposal is fulfilled to its original intent. I am horrified that I'm actually starting to form the opinion of Mr. Flibble. If a proposal aiming to strengthen the educational process, while protecting political and religious ideologies from the ever-pervasive scientific front, gets bogged down with filibusters and intentionally deceiving interpretations... then is it at all possible for actual education to be protected and mandated on an international level? I'm beginning to think not.


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

High melodrama indeed! But I'm struggling to see its relevance.

We are not proposing you remove the 'substance' of this bill: we entirely agree with using WAGF funds to promote education. Nor are we even suggesting you lessen in toto the curricular elements, for while we suggest removing one syllabus element (the juxtaposition of 'science' and 'religion') we equally suggest adding a new one (sex education, for which still no counterargument forthcoming) for no net loss.

Furthermore, the debate is obscuring an important semantic distinction. There is difference between 'teaching religion' and 'teaching about religion'. Though we don't particularly think it's more important than other courses such as geography or foreign languages, we accept the worthiness of the latter of these. But your proposal seeks to entrench the former.

As to your accusation that we wish to ban religion altogether, this is a particularly hurtful accusation as we are this year celebrating the centenary of the repeal of Prohibition (http://nswiki.net/index.php?title=Quintessence_of_Dust#The_Sunshine_Republic). We would never support the legislative curtailing of religious rights: what we are opposed to is granting legislative approval to indoctrination.

-- Samantha Benson

It really is disheartening that it has come down to removing any and all actual substance from this act, just because one representative is vehement on twisting language to suit their needs to win a rather disgusting argument.
After the number of times I've pointed out your twistings of language, something you've never accepted, the only sane response to this bit of bile is uproarious laughter.

Nothing is actually banned in this act.
You keep saying that, and it keeps not being true. You are proposing to ban required courses that have both scientific and religious content. If you want to perpetuate your scientific community's inability to understand your religious community and vice versa, well that's sad and all but at least it's your country. I'd rather you didn't force us to allow the process to start happening.

Ms. Benson also has not let up on false and sophomoric accusations that I am somehow a modern-day segregationist, aiming to oppress science and put religion on a pedestal, based in the single fact that I do not believe that religion should be banned in favor of science. It's rather hypocritical.
You are a segregationist. You've said so, flat out, many times in this debate.

True. But this does not mean it should be abetted within the school system.For example: child abuse can take place within the home. Prohibiting teachers from abusing children will not prevent parents from doing so. But the mere existence of child abuse in the home does not legitimise it within the school. [Note: given debates on religion and debates on child abuse can become very heated rapidly, it's important to stress this is an example, not an equation.]Furthermore, we posit that the school should lie within the 'public sphere', a space in which discourse and enquiry are promoted, not stifled. Within any particularly oppressive theocracy, the public sphere is likely to have a severely diminished role; all the more important, then, to eke out this one small corner in which freedom can breathe.

It would never be the position of Alector to defend a theocracy. Theocracies stifle intellectual and more importantly economic growth, the key to prosperity. But the position of Alector is that destruction of theocracies must come from within, not without. The people must be ready to reject, and when that happens, the government will be forced to follow. The best way to ensure this is to develop education. If that means teaching religious indoctrination alongside Newton and Einstein, or perhaps temporarily in their stead, so be it. This will lay the seed for the evolution of the society, as has happened in almost every nation supporting your position. Most nations did not have the dubious benefit of a World Assembly to force radical changes in their society.

Firstly, I should point out that although elected to represent our region, that is largely a nominal position. We vote, but do not wholly speak, for our region, and our comments on this proposal and elsewhere reflect national, not regional, opinions.Secondly, in one of the many unanswered challenges to this proposal, I have raised the spectre of political indoctrination in the form of Lysenkoism (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14260974&postcount=63). That was one example, and I am aware that there are others. So, as far as possible, we would like education to be a politically neutral space; we return to the idea of a 'public sphere'.

It is hard for nations so recent on the international stage to understand the differences in how the global relations of each region are conducted. It was not my intention to offend Wisteria. From now on, I will make sure my comments are directed only towards the representative and not the region as a whole. Alector is only a nation, and does not have the authority to speak for its region in any capacity. I thank you Ms. Benson for helping Alector in making that clarification. We would never wish to over step our bounds. And I thank such powerful delegates for taking the time to listen to such an insignificant country.

As to the issue at hand, if political indoctrination is something you believe the international system can eliminate, then our gap may be larger than I believed. Alector is not of the opinion that other nations have the cultural, moral or ethical authority to determine the specific aspects of any nations curriculum. But we can unite together to make sure every child is educated. With knowledge, indoctrination of every variety is stifled. It takes a great deal of time to accomplish this, but disaster occurs if the issue is forced or ignored. If we try to control each curriculum nation by nation, we will only ensure that education becomes the enemy. That is unacceptable to Alector.

The very fact that these issues are being raised surely demonstrates just how complex an issue this is and as such how perverse it is to single out religion for special promotion and protection. Our proposed solution is not, as you suggest, to get further into the intricacies of syllabus content, but rather to eliminate all discussion of religious education within this proposal.

But you did acknowledge other forms of indoctrination were of particular concern. I'm sure you can understand the confusion.

Religious education is an intrical part of many educational systems in the world. In some nations, this is the only form of education. I see why it would be essential to make sure the fear these nations may have over any provision which could be used to stifle that religious education is alleviated. The inclusion of religious education, while simulteneously ensuring that it is treated as a separate subject, does this job. It provides comfort to these nations. It is a compromise.

I understand the principle of your position is sound. But look at the practical reality over ideological opposition to public religious education. Nations that fear their religious education will be stifled by only funding other subjects will simply remove themselves from the World Assembly. Their children will still be indoctrinated, but without the benefit of potential exposure to other ideas. What will this accomplish?

And it seems to us that it is exactly what this proposal does not do: by prohibiting the teaching of science, educational opportunities are decreased.

But in many of these areas, science is already prohibited. I admit, it is unsettling that nations have the option to fund religious education and ignore science. But it becomes less unsettling when we realize this is already the case. This could renew debate in those countries. And the option to teach both is preserved. What we are doing is creating opportunities. Opportunities work far better than an iron fist. They may take more time, but the collateral damage is far less.

Furthermore, if the real aim were to increase educational opportunities, then i) the proposal would be universal, not applicable only to public education, and ii) the suggestion that comprehensive sex education be included might at least have been given a moment's thought instead of summarily - and without justification - dismissed.

What is the "real" aim in your view?

I do not think it would be productive to engage in a discussion over the relative merits of private versus public education or the natural right of the parent to educate their child in an environment consistent with their own beliefs. And if science does not play in a theocracy, it is somewhat fantastic to believe sex education has a chance. So I can understand why that was tabled. Practicality and compromise must win out.

I agree, entirely. So why, if that is the intention of this proposal, is it also dabbling in the content of science courses? Why not base the proposal entirely on the mechanics of funding schools, and worry in a separate, subsequent, proposal about what is taught.The very fact that this issue is consuming so much attention and - from one side of the debate - discussion time is all the more indicative of the merits of dropping it from the proposal. Instead of wasting days debating the definition of 'religion', why not scrap that aspect and confine the proposal to discussion of improving funding? That way, supplies can be shipped out now to those who need them, and then we can worry about what is taught in separate, subsequent proposals.-- Samantha BensonCongressional Liaison, Office of WA AffairsQuintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

It could just as easily be suggested that we stop wasting time quibbling over a single line and see the opportunities this will create in its current form. But I don't think such a circular debate would be productive. It is the opinion of Alector that practicality should be our focus. These children need education. While we sit here arguing over whether God or Newton will be mentioned, many of these children are simply struggling to survive.

Orion Morel
World Assembly Representative
Federation of Alector

We are not proposing you remove the 'substance' of this bill: we entirely agree with using WAGF funds to promote education. Nor are we even suggesting you lessen in toto the curricular elements, for while we suggest removing one syllabus element (the juxtaposition of 'science' and 'religion') we equally suggest adding a new one (sex education, for which still no counterargument forthcoming) for no net loss.

Furthermore, the debate is obscuring an important semantic distinction. There is difference between 'teaching religion' and 'teaching about religion'. Though we don't particularly think it's more important than other courses such as geography or foreign languages, we accept the worthiness of the latter of these. But your proposal seeks to entrench the former.Replacing religion with sex education certainly does constitute a net loss, Ms. Benson. Although your language suggests it, I find it rather hard to believe that you'd accept a revision that includes religion. On that same note, I'm entirely unsure how to include science and religion in a proposal, without juxtaposing them. After giving it thought, I've come to conclusion that it's entirely impossible, and demanding that they not be juxtaposed is equatable to demanding that one not be included at all. Despite what fellow Ambassadors say, the various arguments throughout the WA headquarters provide ample proof that the two are mutually antagonistic of each other. There are always exceptions, but this is the case most of the time.

Adding "about" is an effortless task, but it doesn't really change the argument. Teaching about something has influence on the minds of children. After all, Glen-Rhodes teaches about science, and because of that, my children know that we evolved from more primitive beings. If we teach about religion, then the children are susceptible to learning that we are all descendants of two people that some mystical, omnipotent God created and put in to a garden; only an example, of course. That being said, however, in the interest of protecting religious perspectives, I am willing to add "about".

Also, I have provided my reasoning for not including sex education several times. I cannot help that you refuse to accept it as my reason, but I don't have another one to give.

You are a segregationist. You've said so, flat out, many times in this debate.
No, ma'am, you've said so.


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

ambassadors, both old and new,

i must apologize for a large absense from the forums. i was moving, and didn't have internet access for quite some time. it was insanity. but i'm back. welcomming the new ambassadors to the forum.


moving into the debate, i must side with my partner Glen-Rhodes on the private schooling issue. however, i would ask him to put up the newest version just for clarity's sake. the resolution, would allow and never ban any nation from teaching science, religion, or both. so i don't quite understand the objections.

this resolution creates 'bar minimums' for nations to follow. any nation may pass laws in order to move ahead and progress beyond this proposal of course, as long as a law doesn't go against anything in the proposal. because of some confusion, and my absense, i'm not sure whether the science religion clauses are staying in along with the defintions or not. i have tried to revise all comments and keep up but there are too much.

i would like to as the my partner to put up the newest version asap so we can start debating that version as soon as possible. and so that my argument could be made with a bit more accuracy. thank you

Wachichi

Adding "about" is an effortless task, but it doesn't really change the argument.
It changes the entire argument.

Teaching about something has influence on the minds of children.
I'd hope so. That's the point of teaching, after all.

After all, Glen-Rhodes teaches about science, and because of that, my children know that we evolved from more primitive beings.
No. Your children know that we evolved from more primative beings because they were taught that bit of science (with the usual oversimplifications, apparently). If they were taught about science, they'd have an understanding of the scientific method, the areas and methodologies that science is applicable to and interested in, the effects of scientific development on the history of your regions, and so on.

If we teach about religion, then the children are susceptible to learning that we are all descendants of two people that some mystical, omnipotent God created and put in to a garden; only an example, of course.
Again, no, for the same reasons. One of my aides put it like this: you're mistaking the container for the contents.

Also, I have provided my reasoning for not including sex education several times. I cannot help that you refuse to accept it as my reason, but I don't have another one to give.
I think Ms Benson has been trying to get you to be consistent in your arguments -- why do science and religion have to be mentioned, but sex education not? Special pleading might be a viable answer, but inconsistent special pleading isn't.

No, ma'am, you've said so.
So you haven't maintained, and worked into almost every draft, that scientific and religious teaching should be kept segregated, to the point where a government must provide segregated courses if a parent so chooses? No matter how lousy that idea is held to be by local educators?

No. Your children know that we evolved from more primative beings because they were taught that bit of science (with the usual oversimplifications, apparently). If they were taught about science, they'd have an understanding of the scientific method, the areas and methodologies that science is applicable to and interested in, the effects of scientific development on the history of your regions, and so on.

Again, no, for the same reasons. One of my aides put it like this: you're mistaking the container for the contents.You obviously do not understand the meaning of "example". Your being purposefully ignorant isn't going to help any situation.


I think Ms Benson has been trying to get you to be consistent in your arguments -- why do science and religion have to be mentioned, but sex education not? Special pleading might be a viable answer, but inconsistent special pleading isn't.Sex education isn't being included, because it goes beyond what I deem morally acceptable international mandates. Questions of promoting sexual promiscuity, premarital sex, underage sex and all the other right-based issues, come along with any sex education law. Separate nations are more apt at handling their constituents' opinions on the subject, and creating laws better tailored for their culture and education systems.

The bottom line is: this proposal will not focus on everything under the sun, about education. Why include sex ed., but not phys. ed.? Why not include a life skills class, to teach our children how to sew and iron? What you seem to not understand about this proposal, is that it sets a minimum, not a complete curriculum. It's not the responsibility of the World Assembly to create each nation's education systems. It is the responsibility of the World Assembly, however, to make sure that those systems are adequate. Sex ed. is simply not a necessary, core course.


So you haven't maintained, and worked into almost every draft, that scientific and religious teaching should be kept segregated, to the point where a government must provide segregated courses if a parent so chooses? No matter how lousy that idea is held to be by local educators?No, I have not. I've maintained, and worked into almost every draft, that scientific and religious teaching should be taught in one of three systems; none of which segregate science or religion from each other. Just to prove this, since I can already see a retort: option A teaches science, option B teaches religion, option C teaches science-religion hybrid, then science and religion separately, as an alt. course. No option there segregates science and religion. Is this understandable, or do I need to draw some pictures?

ACKNOWLEDGING that many member nations lack an organized educational system, either by choice or otherwise,

REALIZING that education promotes economic and social growth,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE 'education' as the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the abilities of reasoning and judgment, and to generally prepare oneself or others for mature life.
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.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by any means deemed appropriate.

III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education, affecting all government-funded, or otherwise publicly owned or operated primary education systems:
a) SUCH a standard for primary education shall consist of literature, composition, mathematics, history, and either science or religion, – or both -- per article III, sections d and e, that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) DEFINING literature as the reading and analyzing of acceptable publications of each separate WA member nation; composition as the systems of writing of the WA member nation; mathematics as the principles of numbers and their relations; history as the series of significant events, documents, and people of the WA member nation; science as the universally accepted laws that govern the universe; and religion as a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things.
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 teaching about science, and substitute it with teaching about religion, given that the WA member nation provides a state-sponsored religion.
f) PROHIBITS the teaching about science and religion in the same course, unless alternative courses are offered in both religion and science.

IV) MANDATE that all WA member nations make education, as defined under this Act, readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of high-level brain activity.

V) MANDATE that financial aid for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, given that the nation falls under one or more qualifications listed below:
a) the nation is unable to fiscally meet the requirements of this Act, after instituting every possible fund-raising operation, within the means of maintaining economic stability, or
b) the nation has no existing educational system or infrastructure.
ALSO MANDATE that funding be limited to:
c) the procurement of educational supplies, including, but not limited to, textbooks, writing utilities, literature, and technologies;
d) the construction of educational facilities, specific to primary education.
e) the retrofitting of existing primary education facilities to comply with article IV.

VI) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid.

Co-authored by Wachichi.

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

ambassadors,

though this is a debate to improve this proposal i believe the tone is going in the wrong direction. my partner,though i agree with most of his stances, is taking a very negative and insulting tone toward Ms. Benson and others. while at the same time, there are nations, who aren't being so curtious back. and though no one has just blatantly attacked the other, the attacks seem to be shadowed with short smiles all around. i hope we could be more civil.

on the resolution. my partner is right. we can't have the WA going into too much detail to include the sex ed..etc. however, religion and science are much larger issues seeing that there are nations who base their entire governments on religion, or reject religion and prefer the sciences. so the measures written in the resolution concerning the two subjects, are there to all nations both religious and not so, to be encompassed in the resolution.

i thank my partner for putting up the newest version.

however, i believe i must bring up a previously and dropped argument in the debate. and that's the funding. i won't push for teacher salaries..etc. however, i must ask. if the committee created in our resolution will 'generally oversee all requests for financial aid' why are we limiting it's funding to the mentioned things? what if there is something that a nation needs that we can't think off at the moment. will the committee be barred from providing that neccesity seeing that it's funding is so very restricted?

and what if that specific neccessity will determine the success or failure of that education facility? my point is, we should be so restrictive in language seeing that we can't come up with every single possible essential educational need for every single WA nation.

Wachichi

i agree with the thought to educate all. you have my support.:D

ambassadors,

though this is a debate to improve this proposal i believe the tone is going in the wrong direction. my partner,though i agree with most of his stances, is taking a very negative and insulting tone toward Ms. Benson and others. while at the same time, there are nations, who aren't being so curtious back. and though no one has just blatantly attacked the other, the attacks seem to be shadowed with short smiles all around. i hope we could be more civil.

on the resolution. my partner is right. we can't have the WA going into too much detail to include the sex ed..etc. however, religion and science are much larger issues seeing that there are nations who base their entire governments on religion, or reject religion and prefer the sciences. so the measures written in the resolution concerning the two subjects, are there to all nations both religious and not so, to be encompassed in the resolution.

i thank my partner for putting up the newest version.

however, i believe i must bring up a previously and dropped argument in the debate. and that's the funding. i won't push for teacher salaries..etc. however, i must ask. if the committee created in our resolution will 'generally oversee all requests for financial aid' why are we limiting it's funding to the mentioned things? what if there is something that a nation needs that we can't think off at the moment. will the committee be barred from providing that neccesity seeing that it's funding is so very restricted?

and what if that specific neccessity will determine the success or failure of that education facility? my point is, we should be so restrictive in language seeing that we can't come up with every single possible essential educational need for every single WA nation.

Wachichi



We agree with the respected Ambassador for Wachichi on the matter of including further funding provisions. Indeed unless this aspect is elaborated upon and the needless juxtaposition of religion and science is removed then we will oppose this statute on the basis that it presumes the character of this organisation is barbarous and benighted and will damage the prospects of actual improvement of education standards of member states.


Yours e.t.c. ,

however, i believe i must bring up a previously and dropped argument in the debate. and that's the funding. i won't push for teacher salaries..etc. however, i must ask. if the committee created in our resolution will 'generally oversee all requests for financial aid' why are we limiting it's funding to the mentioned things? what if there is something that a nation needs that we can't think off at the moment. will the committee be barred from providing that neccesity seeing that it's funding is so very restricted?

Wachichi

Funding is noted, Ambassador of Wachichi. Is the following acceptable? Essentially, the limitations have been removed. To prevent wild spending, I've amended article VI. Suggest a different amendment, if you wish. I can see that the current one is rather broad.
V) MANDATE that financial aid for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, given that the nation falls under one or more qualifications listed below:
a) the nation is unable to fiscally meet the requirements of this Act, after instituting every possible fund-raising operation, within the means of maintaining economic stability, or
b) the nation has no existing educational system or infrastructure.

VI) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid, based on the legitimacy of the requests.


We agree with the respected Ambassador for Wachichi on the matter of including further funding provisions. Indeed unless this aspect is elaborated upon and the needless juxtaposition of religion and science is removed then we will oppose this statute on the basis that it presumes the character of this organisation is barbarous and benighted and will damage the prospects of actual improvement of education standards of member states.


Yours e.t.c. ,

So, which would like to have? Science or religion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14289830&postcount=102), Ambassador?

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

i agree with the changes on funding, and thank my partner for making the changes.

on the science and religion issue. i believe the ambassador of Urgench, wasn't reffering to a preference to either science or religion. i believe the nation was reffering to the removal of the science and religion clauses in general and concentrating on something else.

I, of course would disagree. however, i do have one objection on the issue. it basically says that a nation can't provide religion only education unless the government has a state-sponsored religion. i personally think that is an infringement on the rights of states to choose their system better. for example, take the following scenario. a democratic nation, has a massive change in power. (newly elected leaders are elected to office by the majority of the populace) and lets say, it's the people's will to include a certain religion taught, or maybe just a class about religion, however, don't favor having the state sponsor a specific religion. under the proposal they will be barred from doing so. that i disagree with.

or lets say a new dictator comes to power and justs wants a class teaching about religion, mind you, not about a certain religion, but about all religions. he will be barred under the proposal because he/she must have a state sponsored religion. the proposal goes into detail about classes teaching religion. and by doing so, also creates barriers for nations to set up classes to teach ABOUT religion in general. like classes that study the different kinds of religions, which are void of science.

Wachichi

please address my concerns and may the debate continue.:D

Neither or both respected Ambassador, but they should not be treated as though they were mutually exclusive.

Clauses d) and f) of Article III need only specify the teaching of humanities ( religion being included in this ) and science in the same ways as the other clauses deal with maths and literature.

The convoluted way these subjects are dealt with is needless and presumes a level of antipathy between branches of learning which is functionally false.

Yours e.t.c. ,

continuing off my past comments, i must ask.

why is religion even being spoken off since this resolution is only for primary education? will kids be taught religious theology now? i personally think that the resolution should eliminate the "primary education" phrase whereever listed so we can actually have an education bill dealing with minimal education at all levels onto highschool or whatever it's called in individual nations.

Wachichi

Neither or both respected Ambassador, but they should not be treated as though they were mutually exclusive.

Clauses d) and f) of Article III need only specify the teaching of humanities ( religion being included in this ) and science in the same ways as the other clauses deal with maths and literature.

The convoluted way these subjects are dealt with is needless and presumes a level of antipathy between branches of learning which is functionally false.

Yours e.t.c. ,

The antipathy between science and religion is not false, Ambassador. If there was no antipathy between the two courses, then there would be no argument. Science and religion are, for the most part, incompatible. There are distinct, fundamental differences between the two. These differences happen to be polar opposites; religion deals with the belief of something supernatural, without empirical evidence; science operates under the opposite definition.

That being said, I would personally have no objections in mandating humanities and science, as separate courses. That way, science-religion hybrids can be taught, as well as distinct science and humanity courses. However, I imagine that the two largest objectors might have something to say about it.

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

i disagree, the two aren't complete opposites.

but can someone, especially my partner respond to my two comments. they are valid points.

Wachichi

The antipathy between science and religion is not false, Ambassador. If there was no antipathy between the two courses, then there would be no argument. Science and religion are, for the most part, incompatible. There are distinct, fundamental differences between the two. These differences happen to be polar opposites; religion deals with the belief of something supernatural, without empirical evidence; science operates under the opposite definition.

That being said, I would personally have no objections in mandating humanities and science, as separate courses. That way, science-religion hybrids can be taught, as well as distinct science and humanity courses. However, I imagine that the two largest objectors might have something to say about it.

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



This antipathy you have constructed is exactly the fallacy we are referring to. Education should not try to impart "Truth" of any specific kind as though truth were immutable unchanging and unchallenged.

Science and religion should be taught to children as phenomena of the human experience of the world. Religion is merely a supernatural endeavour in explaining the universe, Science is a physical and empirical endeavour to do the same. Both are ever changing ever evolving , children should be able in all circumstances to learn about both approaches to the understanding of reality and should be allowed to decide for themselves which they find more convincing.

Urgench is extremely irreligious and most Urgenchis are atheists, but we insure that our children are given as wide an education as possible, including providing them with the ability to learn about any and all faiths which it is their desire to explore.


Eduction should not be viewed as an exercise in political policy. We begin to worry that the honoured Ambassador for Glen Rhodes' government's view on the antipathy between religion and science is beginning to cloud there judgement. We urge them to have the courage to insist that this resolution does actually improve education for all children in w.a. member states and not to create an educational apartheid for religious and secular states.


Yours e.t.c.,

someone respond to my comments!

lol

Wachichi

someone respond to my comments!

lol

Wachichi


We responded to your comments about funding honoured Ambassador. Perhaps you did not take the time to read them. In any event demanding that people respond to you is rather rude. We are sure that if Ambassadors wish to respond they will, if they do not ,and sometimes they may not, presume it because response is obviated.


Yours e.t.c. ,

ambassador,

i noted your response to my funding and am glad you did. i apologize for being so impatient and sounding rude. just having a little fun. if it came off as rude, i'm sorry. i just feel strongly on what i stated. and didn't want my points to be forgotten without response.

Wachichi

continuing off my past comments, i must ask.

why is religion even being spoken off since this resolution is only for primary education? will kids be taught religious theology now? i personally think that the resolution should eliminate the "primary education" phrase whereever listed so we can actually have an education bill dealing with minimal education at all levels onto highschool or whatever it's called in individual nations.

Wachichi


As we have stated elsewhere in this debate we would welcome the removal of the provisions for both religion and science. However a resolution dealing with both primary and secondary education would have to be much more comprehensive than this resolution currently is and would be radically different in content to this one. And we would oppose it in any case since we do not feel such a resolution is necessary.


Yours e.t.c. ,

You obviously do not understand the meaning of "example". Your being purposefully ignorant isn't going to help any situation.
And your purposefully not listening to what I actually say isn't going to help either. Your example was not of "teaching about science", it was of "teaching science". I gave examples instead of "teaching about science", which seem to have completely escaped your comprehension. This isn't even a subtle bit of English, it's the really quite straightforward meaning of the word "about".

Sex education isn't being included, because [snip reasons for space]. Separate nations are more apt at handling their constituents' opinions on the subject, and creating laws better tailored for their culture and education systems.
And yet these same considerations don't seem to apply where science and religion teaching at primary level is concerned. Where's the consistency in that?

No, I have not. I've maintained, and worked into almost every draft, that scientific and religious teaching should be taught in one of three systems; none of which segregate science or religion from each other. Just to prove this, since I can already see a retort: option A teaches science, option B teaches religion, option C teaches science-religion hybrid, then science and religion separately, as an alt. course. No option there segregates science and religion. Is this understandable, or do I need to draw some pictures?
Yes, you allow these three options to exist. No, you don't allow options A and B not to exist. Nations, under your proposal, must allow science and religion to be segregated. QED.

Ok, so it seems things have got a bit more complex. By introducing the contrast between 'teach x' and 'teach about x', I've contributed to that. I apologise. But it's an important point worth understanding, so forgive if I try to explain more fully.

Let's assume two (false, but humour me) premises:
- everyone is opposed to sexism
- everyone thinks it's important for children to learn to not be sexist

We would not, then, expect a class to 'teach sexism'. We would expect it to 'teach about sexism'.

The above distinction cannot be made for mathematics. We expect classes to 'teach mathematics'.

To teach science would be to impart scientific knowledge. To teach about science would be to critically discuss the scientific method. One might teach science in a biology class, teach about science in an HPS class.

It follows that to teach about religion would be to critically discuss the nature of religious beliefs, without necessarily conferring opinions as to the validity of those beliefs. To teach religion, though, would be to actually impart religious beliefs. In terms of academic disciplines, I would say 'teaching religion' falls under Divinity, 'teaching about religion' Theology (though these are only the terms used in Quintessence of Dust, and for assorted reasons might not apply elsewhere).

'Pedagogy' comes from the Greek for 'lead the child'. Particularly at the age of child this proposal discusses, we of course expect teachers to lead the learning of students.

Only, then, if we believed that 'teach science' and 'teach religion' confer identical valences would we accept the premises of this proposal. Yet that seems difficult to believe, given they expressly deal with different areas: the natural and the supernatural, claims that cannot be validated by faith and claims that can only be validated by faith.

That's all I'm sayin'.

Now to respond to one specific comment:
Also, I have provided my reasoning for not including sex education several times. I cannot help that you refuse to accept it as my reason, but I don't have another one to give.
What makes this so hysterically funny is that I think you actually believe this to be true.

You had, prior to this comment, made only two references to sex education. They were: Sex education is something I feel that should be decided by each separate nation, not the World Assembly. I hope you can understand this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14255376&postcount=56) and I also already addressed sex education. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14261057&postcount=64). That's it. Those three sentences were the entire substance of your commentary on sex education. Thus, you're playing pretty fast and loose with the words 'reason' and 'several'.

I would ask again for a reason, but you did then provide it - but only subsequent to your initial claim to have already done so:
Sex education isn't being included, because it goes beyond what I deem morally acceptable international mandates.
First, it's worth noting you are still basing your refusal to consider educating children on a personal claim - 'what I deem morally acceptable'.

As such, I will immediately and comprehensively counter this argument with the following logically airtight statement:

'Sex education should be included, because it is within what I deem morally acceptable international mandates.'

We already know what you feel. The aim, remember, is to convince other people of why what you feel should become law. When I was 15 I wrote poems about my feelings in the margin of my geography book. I am not, however, trying to turn them into international law.
Questions of promoting sexual promiscuity, premarital sex, underage sex and all the other right-based issues, come along with any sex education law.
Jumping way ahead of the curve, but I do like how you're slandering hard-working educators. If you really think sex education promotes promiscuity, why not come out and say it? I will note, though, that when I was a teenager my promiscuity never needed any promoting - and it was only the sex education I'd received that stopped me getting harmed (or pregnant) as a result.

I'd note most religions also have their fair share to say on 'right-based issues'.
Separate nations are more apt at handling their constituents' opinions on the subject, and creating laws better tailored for their culture and education systems.
This is a perfectly reasonable argument. But why is it not the case for, ooh, I don't know, how about, the inclusion of religion in state schools? What aspect of sex education is exceptionalist, that makes it different to scientific education, which is apparently so easy to legislate on at the international level?
The bottom line is: this proposal will not focus on everything under the sun, about education. Why include sex ed., but not phys. ed.? Why not include a life skills class, to teach our children how to sew and iron? What you seem to not understand about this proposal, is that it sets a minimum, not a complete curriculum.
This is, again, a reasonable argument - or would be, if only your proposal established why its core curricula were so essential. So, allow me to ask: why include religious education, but not physical education?

You didn't respond to any of my earlier arguments in favour of sex education, but I'll make one last - no doubt forsaken - attempt.

1. There is nothing more fundamental than learning about one's body, and the changes that happen to it during sexual development. To say that this does not fall within a 'minimum...curriculum' is laughable.

2. Sexual acts can transmit diseases to innocent parties. It would take a particularly horrific accident to injure someone else through bad stitching. So, in your question of why teach sex education and not sewing: because proper condom use saves lives, proper cross-stitching does not.

3. HIV/AIDS and other STIs represent international problems. The old UN had several resolutions about them. Diseases do not respect national borders. Countries heavily afflicted by them require international aid. Research efforts are bolstered by international cooperation. The prevention of these diseases, then, represents a legitimate international concern.
It's not the responsibility of the World Assembly to create each nation's education systems. It is the responsibility of the World Assembly, however, to make sure that those systems are adequate.
And you have done nothing to demonstrate that a school system that does not teach sex education is not inadequate. I have provided arguments as to why I believe they are.

This has been an uncustomarily long address so I will stop here. I will, of course, try to respond to the comments of the representative of Alector tomorrow, when I have time. I don't, obviously, expect Dr. Castro to respond to everything I've said; but even a few lines on why sex education should not be taught would be very instructive.

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

And yet these same considerations don't seem to apply where science and religion teaching at primary level is concerned. Where's the consistency in that?To respond to both you and Ms. Benson, sex education is a specific course, with highly specific, highly personalized content. Religion and science are not. They are rather broad, compared to sex education. I see no inconsistency in my reasoning.
Yes, you allow these three options to exist. No, you don't allow options A and B not to exist. Nations, under your proposal, must allow science and religion to be segregated. QED.Why would I call them options if you can't choose not to have them? You can choose option A, option B, or option C. I don't quite see where you're getting that you have to choose option A and option B. The proposal doesn't mandate the segregation of science and religion. The proposal gives the option of each nation to choose whether or not they will teach one over the other, or teach them both. It's quite simple. The law means what it says, Ms. Coch.
Ok, so it seems things have got a bit more complex. By introducing the contrast between 'teach x' and 'teach about x', I've contributed to that. I apologise. But it's an important point worth understanding, so forgive if I try to explain more fully.

[cut...]

That's all I'm sayin'.
Quite fair. I'll assume that removing or moving around "about" would fix the problem.
d) EXTENDS the right of each WA member nation to reject teaching science, and substitute it with teaching about religion.
f) PROHIBITS the teaching of science and about religion in the same course, unless alternative courses are offered in both religion and science.

First, it's worth noting you are still basing your refusal to consider educating children on a personal claim - 'what I deem morally acceptable'.

As such, I will immediately and comprehensively counter this argument with the following logically airtight statement:

'Sex education should be included, because it is within what I deem morally acceptable international mandates.'

We already know what you feel. The aim, remember, is to convince other people of why what you feel should become law.
I began writing this legislation, because I personally felt that an international standard of education should exist. I first included the science-religion clauses, because I personally felt that religion has no place within the science classroom (a feeling I'm almost positive that we share). I think you stake too little claim on the affects of "feelings" -- which you also seem to find childish if I'm reading your tone correctly -- when it comes to the creation of international law. We are not robots. We don't just go down a checklist and see that education hasn't been addressed, and decide to address it. At least, any member of this organization worth their weight in chutzpah doesn't. That being said, your counter would be perfectly acceptable.

Jumping way ahead of the curve, but I do like how you're slandering hard-working educators. If you really think sex education promotes promiscuity, why not come out and say it? I will note, though, that when I was a teenager my promiscuity never needed any promoting - and it was only the sex education I'd received that stopped me getting harmed (or pregnant) as a result.

I'd note most religions also have their fair share to say on 'right-based issues'.If anything, I'm slandering the religious right; not that I'd ever admit that officially. Unless I'm again mistaking your intention, you're again operating under the assumption that I'm either religious or conservative. I'm neither, and I do not believe that sex education promotes sexual promiscuity. I think that it's a rather valuable class, but it's a class that is shaped by cultural identity just as much as it is by anatomy and biological processes.

This is, again, a reasonable argument - or would be, if only your proposal established why its core curricula were so essential. So, allow me to ask: why include religious education, but not physical education?
Earlier in this response, I stated that I wrote the science-religion clauses to protect science from religion. In the process, I found myself, to your dismay, also protecting religion from science. This assumes that the two are, as I believe they are, mutually exclusive of each other. Under this assumption, they both require equal protection.

There are multiple reason why I would not include physical education. The first being that it does not belong to the traditional core courses of education. The second being that it's most commonly an extracurricular course, and I've shied away from mandating extracurriculars in a minimum-setting law. The third reason is that, like sex education, physical education is also shaped by cultural identity as much as it is by anatomy and exercise; though, I'm not suggesting that physical education is largely taboo. I'm suggesting that it's on in an equal category of uniqueness, and is best mandated by separate nations.

You didn't respond to any of my earlier arguments in favour of sex education, but I'll make one last - no doubt forsaken - attempt.
[cut...]
And you have done nothing to demonstrate that a school system that does not teach sex education is not inadequate. I have provided arguments as to why I believe they are.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of WysteriaOne reason for my not including sex education is that it undercuts the attempt at protecting religious views. Sex education, as I stated before, is largely based on a nation's cultural identity. Summarily, it is a case in which national law is more prepared and knowledgeable to take on, than international law is.

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

I think I'll jump in with Rutianas's viewpoint of what would be acceptable subjects to be listed since others are doing it as well.

First, Rutianas would prefer that science and religion both are struck from it due to the difficulties involved with other nations. We have rethought our stance on it and have realised that other nations may take issue with this, even we are already abiding by the proposal.

Second, we must agree with the others. Sex education is a key class we offer in late primary education. Please note, we offer this class. It is not a requirement until early secondary education. However, we do feel it is necessary to impart knowledge regarding a persons sexuality and the dangers involved with becoming sexually active. Honestly, isn't that what education is all about at the end of the day? Imparting knowledge?

So Rutianas believes that if science and religion remain in a proposal that is dealing with primary education, then sex education should be added. Let's make it an all or none situation.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Why would I call them options if you can't choose not to have them? You can choose option A, option B, or option C. I don't quite see where you're getting that you have to choose option A and option B. The proposal doesn't mandate the segregation of science and religion. The proposal gives the option of each nation to choose whether or not they will teach one over the other, or teach them both. It's quite simple. The law means what it says, Ms. Coch.

Here's what the law (or at least your last draft) says:
f) PROHIBITS the teaching of science and about religion in the same course, unless alternative courses are offered in both religion and science.
Gobbannium cannot choose to present a course including science and religion (option C) on its own. We must also provide the equivalent course without science (option A) and without religion (option B). This is not optional, or a recommendation, it's an out right requirement: all or none. In other words, we must enable segregationalism, no matter how wrong our educators think that idea is.

That's what your precious law says, Dr Castro. Stop pretending otherwise.

After reading through some of the discussion concerning this proposal, as well as the proposal itself, I can safely say that, were this submitted and were this to reach quorum, Subistratica would not support it.

The antipathy between science and religion is not false, Ambassador. If there was no antipathy between the two courses, then there would be no argument. Science and religion are, for the most part, incompatible. There are distinct, fundamental differences between the two. These differences happen to be polar opposites; religion deals with the belief of something supernatural, without empirical evidence; science operates under the opposite definition.
OOC: There have been NS nations that did/do have empirical evidence for the existence of their deities, in fact at least two deities actually manifested within the NSUN Building at different points in its history...

So Rutianas believes that if science and religion remain in a proposal that is dealing with primary education, then sex education should be added. Let's make it an all or none situation.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Given my reasons stated above, I'm not willing to mandate sex education. The argument that because you have it, everybody else should, is fundamentally flawed. Sex education will remain the choice of individual nations.

Gobbannium cannot choose to present a course including science and religion (option C) on its own. We must also provide the equivalent course without science (option A) and without religion (option B). This is not optional, or a recommendation, it's an out right requirement: all or none. In other words, we must enable segregationalism, no matter how wrong our educators think that idea is.

That's what your precious law says, Dr Castro. Stop pretending otherwise.
You're still wrong, Ms. Coch. There is still no segregation. Under option C, all subjects are taught. This act is not going to be tailored to Gobbannium's education system, if you ever thought that it would. Gobbannium will have to change how things work, just like everybody else (including Glen-Rhodes) will. If your educators and lawmakers can't rework a schedule for two new courses, it is no problem of mine. Perhaps you should be looking at the flaws of an overloaded education system, instead of creating make-believe flaws and accusations regarding the mandates in this proposal.

After reading through some of the discussion concerning this proposal, as well as the proposal itself, I can safely say that, were this submitted and were this to reach quorum, Subistratica would not support it.
Are you going to provide any reasons for this, or are you just going to leave me guessing?

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

OOC: There have been NS nations that did/do have empirical evidence for the existence of their deities, in fact at least two deities actually manifested within the NSUN Building at different points in its history...

OOC: It's the internet. There are exceptions to every point made, here. :P Doesn't mean that the basic meaning of faith changes.

I don't know if this was brought up already, but what about private education? About 30% of our nation's students are enrolled in private schools. What effect will this proposal have on them?

I don't know if this was brought up already, but what about private education? About 30% of our nation's students are enrolled in private schools. What effect will this proposal have on them?

None at all according to the honoured Ambassador for Glen Rhodes.



Yours e.t.c. ,

We are beginning to loose confidence that the honoured Ambassador for Glen Rhodes is capable of understanding the flaws in the current wording of their resolution.

We should point out that at least three Ambassador, not including ourselves, have offered their time and expertise to help improve the honoured Ambassador for Glen Rhodes' statute. Some have even done so despite their own delegations possible ambitions in this area. And none of them would have done so if they did not earnestly wish to see a decent and well formed resolution arise from this process, even those with their own ambitions might be happy to see another resolution better than their own or at least as good as their own be formulated here.

If the honoured Ambassador for Glen Rhodes is to insist on retreating to a defensive or confrontational position instead of realising that the advice they are repeatedly being given by various Ambassador's is being given in the interests of improving their statute then we fear this project may be doomed.

We are sure that some of this advice may be couched in terms the honoured Ambassador may have found unpalatable but that is why his state employed a diplomat, to see through how a thing is said to what is actually being said and what the motives are of those who are talking.

Yours e.t.c. ,

ambassadors,

seeing there is a large amount of complexities, and my personal belief that children shouldn't be taught religion until secondary education (if the nation wants to) i, along with other nations, think the removal of the science/religion section should be removed and replaced with a clause stating something like:

". Preserves the rights of any WA nation to provide religious, science, or hybrid courses as the nation sees fit."

i believe it allows nations more flexibility on the issue and doesn't go into too much detail about the courses themselves. it also allows for a nation to NOT provide religious teaching during primary education.

if this clause isn't adopted, i would urge that the language be changed from teaching "about" science and "about" religion. it allows nations to teach about a specific religion if it wants to or not. it also allows nations to simply create a class that teaches about all the different religions and sciences in the world, or those known to that nation.

i believe both my suggestions are bridges between the two sides and allow for the debate to move on from this seemingly stubborn topic. i would accept either suggestion be implemented however, would personally favor my first suggestion which would allow for less confusion (and therefore opposition) once the proposal is up for vote.

if any of these changes were made, we would like to see the newest version for more accurate debate. thank you.

Wachichi

ambassadors,

i would ask you not lose confidence in my partner's ability to be cooperative. he is dedicated to the issue as i am. i would however urge him to make concessions especially if the majority are for the changes. He has told me that the science and religion clauses are important to him, however, i'm confident he would make some of the changes i mentioned as a sort of compromise.

Wachichi

You're still wrong, Ms. Coch. There is still no segregation. Under option C, all subjects are taught.
You're still wrong, Dr Castro. It's no good if option C teaches every subject under the sun if parents are allowed to keep their precious little ones out of that class. That way lies your attitude, where ignorance allows scientists to be scared of religion and divines to be scared of science.

i urge all to consider my compromises to solve the problem.

Wachichi

To respond to the representative of Alector:
It would never be the position of Alector to defend a theocracy. Theocracies stifle intellectual and more importantly economic growth, the key to prosperity. But the position of Alector is that destruction of theocracies must come from within, not without. The people must be ready to reject, and when that happens, the government will be forced to follow. The best way to ensure this is to develop education. If that means teaching religious indoctrination alongside Newton and Einstein, or perhaps temporarily in their stead, so be it. This will lay the seed for the evolution of the society, as has happened in almost every nation supporting your position. Most nations did not have the dubious benefit of a World Assembly to force radical changes in their society.
I find it noteworthy that, in the midst of the discussion of an education bill, you find economic growth 'more important' than intellectual growth. But, no matter: our position stands the internal change you refer to is eminently more likely to come about if nationals are taught in an open fashion. Through words such as 'alongside' and 'perhaps temporarily', you gloss over the actual effect of this proposal: the permanent, irrevocable except by repeal (only one Education resolution - the illegal "Max Barry Day" - was ever repealed under the UN) and complete substitution of ALL scientific education with religious dogma. To shrug, so it goes, at this is to abet tyranny.
As to the issue at hand, if political indoctrination is something you believe the international system can eliminate, then our gap may be larger than I believed. Alector is not of the opinion that other nations have the cultural, moral or ethical authority to determine the specific aspects of any nations curriculum. But we can unite together to make sure every child is educated. With knowledge, indoctrination of every variety is stifled. It takes a great deal of time to accomplish this, but disaster occurs if the issue is forced or ignored. If we try to control each curriculum nation by nation, we will only ensure that education becomes the enemy. That is unacceptable to Alector.
First, you are supporting a proposal that makes a number of curriculum requirements, so your suggestion the WA not try to control subjects is puzzling.

Second, my point in raising Lysenkoism initially was to make the point that while the authors were keen to avoid science and religion co-contaminating, they had no qualms about political doctrine polluting scientific education, making their supposed commitment to intellectual rigour distinctly dubious.

Third, I am the one proposing removing curriculum requirements. So again, your assertion that the WA should not dictate the minutiae of curricula is nice, but rather irrelevant.
Religious education is an intrical part of many educational systems in the world. In some nations, this is the only form of education. I see why it would be essential to make sure the fear these nations may have over any provision which could be used to stifle that religious education is alleviated. The inclusion of religious education, while simulteneously ensuring that it is treated as a separate subject, does this job. It provides comfort to these nations. It is a compromise.

I understand the principle of your position is sound. But look at the practical reality over ideological opposition to public religious education. Nations that fear their religious education will be stifled by only funding other subjects will simply remove themselves from the World Assembly. Their children will still be indoctrinated, but without the benefit of potential exposure to other ideas. What will this accomplish?
Ok. If I'm interpreting the above correctly, you are saying that if this proposal does not include explicit reference to public religious education, it will either fail or lead to a mass exodus from the WA? The UN passed five or six educational proposals, none of which contained reference to religion, and none of which obviously precipitated the exodus of theocracies.

You say it is a 'compromise', but I'm unclear exactly what the polar positions are that are being compromised between here. I am advocating not, in this proposal at least, including language requiring the separation of scientific and religious education. The author is advocating including it. You are saying that including it is a 'compromise'. Surely you mean to say 'a complete victory for one side and complete defeat for the other'?
What is the "real" aim in your view?
To pass an education proposal with the header 'Authored by Glen-Rhodes'.
I do not think it would be productive to engage in a discussion over the relative merits of private versus public education or the natural right of the parent to educate their child in an environment consistent with their own beliefs. And if science does not play in a theocracy, it is somewhat fantastic to believe sex education has a chance. So I can understand why that was tabled. Practicality and compromise must win out.
Once again, you present yourself as on the side of compromise, whereas no effort to meet the suggestions of one side are being made. If I ask for a piece of cake to be cut in two and shared, and instead it is all eaten by the other person, we have not 'compromised'.

Furthermore, you mistate my position. I am not suggesting a debate over the 'merits' of private or public education. Rather, I am questioning how a 'universal' education act can only apply to a certain set of students. A more accurate title would be the 'Not Really Very Universal At All, Actually, Education Act'. Unless this proposal makes at least some attempt to deal with private education, it is not, in fact, engaging in the slightest with the issue at hand.
It could just as easily be suggested that we stop wasting time quibbling over a single line and see the opportunities this will create in its current form. But I don't think such a circular debate would be productive. It is the opinion of Alector that practicality should be our focus. These children need education. While we sit here arguing over whether God or Newton will be mentioned, many of these children are simply struggling to survive.
And this is, once again, the problem with advocating your 'compromise': what you are essentially saying is, shut up and eat it. Well, respectfully: no. I agree too much time is being spent debating this line. But while the line remains in the proposal, that's always going to be the case. Perhaps the authors might take as a sign that given so much effort is being invested in discussing this minor issue, the minor issue would be more suitably addressed in a proposal of its own right.

Turning now to the responses from the representative of Glen-Rhodes:
To respond to both you and Ms. Benson, sex education is a specific course, with highly specific, highly personalized content. Religion and science are not. They are rather broad, compared to sex education. I see no inconsistency in my reasoning.
Uh...wait - what? Now how 'broad' a course is its determinant.

In that case, I would like to propose the learning of 'stuff' be made mandatory. Optional, but encouraged, should be the learning of 'things'. I will lay down and die before I see this proposal exclude 'how stuff works, you know'. I think you'll agree these are much preferable to narrow, overly specific terms such as 'maths' and 'languages'.
Quite fair. I'll assume that removing or moving around "about" would fix the problem.
*sob*

Could you at least pretend to respond to my initial point? This proposal conflates the teaching of with the teaching about, despite their being distinct subject areas. Its problems will not be resolved by refusing to acknowledge the existence of this conflation.
I began writing this legislation, because I personally felt that an international standard of education should exist. I first included the science-religion clauses, because I personally felt that religion has no place within the science classroom (a feeling I'm almost positive that we share). I think you stake too little claim on the affects of "feelings" -- which you also seem to find childish if I'm reading your tone correctly -- when it comes to the creation of international law. We are not robots. We don't just go down a checklist and see that education hasn't been addressed, and decide to address it. At least, any member of this organization worth their weight in [I]chutzpah doesn't. That being said, your counter would be perfectly acceptable.
First, I feel compelled to note there are literal robots who are members of this Assembly :D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Second, you are being a tad presumptuous. Your writing this proposal based on feelings is irrelevant: nobody is supporting it because they desperately want to empathise with you. Well, maybe your mother. But Quintessence of Dust certainly is not. Rather, we support the basic effort because you have provided a rational, universal reason, not based on your own feelings:
REALIZING that education promotes economic and social growth,
You have not provided any such corollary to justify your exclusion of sex education. For example: do you feel that countries with high rates of HIV/AIDS transmission also tend to be economic juggernauts? Do you feel that learning about the changes that happen to your own body impediments socialisation? If so, this is of course fine: but you need to say so.

You also suggest my counter is 'acceptable'. If so, that means you need to come up with new reasons. So, um those would be...?
If anything, I'm slandering the religious right;
I'm not familiar with the expression 'religious right'.
Unless I'm again mistaking your intention, you're again operating under the assumption that I'm either religious or conservative. I'm neither, and I do not believe that sex education promotes sexual promiscuity. I think that it's a rather valuable class, but it's a class that is shaped by cultural identity just as much as it is by anatomy and biological processes.
I'm not familiar with the expression 'cultural identity', either. (There's a good article by R. Brubaker and F. Cooper in the journal Theory & Society critiquing the very use of the word 'identity', if it's something you're interested in.)

Nonetheless, I would be surprised if this 'cultural identity' did not also play a role in shaping religious education? The only way your objection stands is iff 'cultural identity' shapes sex education and iff 'cultural identity' does not shape religious education. Do you believe this to be the case?
Earlier in this response, I stated that I wrote the science-religion clauses to protect science from religion. In the process, I found myself, to your dismay, also protecting religion from science. This assumes that the two are, as I believe they are, mutually exclusive of each other. Under this assumption, they both require equal protection.
First, your assertion that religion and science are mutually exclusive is contentious. Many philosophers of science (including the author of the famous 'Why Intelligent Design is Not Science' piece, a landmark work that this proposal would render illegal the discussion of) use the 'NOMA' system: Non-Overlapping MAgisteria. In Quintessence of Dust, this is most famously propounded by the late popular science writer Stephanie Gould Jay (and criticised by, in my view the rather obnoxious, Richard Squawkins).

Second, we are talking about young children. There is much science they can learn that seems to be thoroughly uncontentious to religion: how to use a Muffinsen burner, the periodic table of elements, classification of species, how a circuit works.

Third, you are, as I've already pointed out, not really concerned with protecting science at all. If you were so, you would also be addressing non-religious intellectual corruption: for example, political doctrine masquerading as science, or the inclusion of spiritualism in science class, or simply the use of bad science. It is as dangerous to teach ether theory as it is irreducible complexity.

Fourth, once more, your definition of science is that it is 'universally accepted'. There follows no logical way it can be constructed to disagree with religion, or else it would not be universally accepted.
There are multiple reason why I would not include physical education. The first being that it does not belong to the traditional core courses of education. The second being that it's most commonly an extracurricular course, and I've shied away from mandating extracurriculars in a minimum-setting law.
This is odd.

First, whence are deriving this 'traditional' curriculum?

Second, there are numerous historical counterexamples. Physical education was central to education in classical Greece, and in classical Quintessence of Dust (though where they taught wrestling, we preferred ping-pong).

Third, physical education quite obviously preceded the evolution of language.

Fourth, your proposal as it stands would not measure up well against a 'traditional curriculum'. The medieval trivium-quadrivium, for example, included rhetoric, geometry and music.

-- Samantha Benson

The respected Ms. Benson is surely not propounding the merits of Non Overlapping Magisteria is she? We would agree that both science and religion attempt to do the same thing, to explain the wonder and the terror of the Universe, but we cannot cannot agree that they do not compete for the conscience of man and attempt to exclude each other from that place if they can.

We do not see science and religion as being oppositional because we accept that not all persons at the same time can be expected to see the universe in exactly the same way and are content to let them feel or think what they wish as far as such grand concepts are concerned. But we cannot agree that both are truly able to coexist in the same single conscience without at least some fundamental contradiction. We are also sure that one day humankind will have no need of gods and will by an evolutionary process rid itself of magical thinking. That is exactly why we do not see the sciences and religion as at variance with each other, the former will one day supplant the latter. Assuming that science and religion are conflicting is like presuming that alchemy and Chemistry are impossible to reconcile, the comparison is facile to begin with and therefore is needless.


Yours e.t.c ,

To Ms. Benson:

To pass an education proposal with the header 'Authored by Glen-Rhodes'.

Alector has said all it can in favor of this proposal. But if this is truly the reason you believe this was presented to the World Assembly, it seems to me this is a personal dispute. I am here to debate the relative merit of WA proposals, not to involve myself in your vendetta against Dr. Castro.

Orion Morel
World Assembly Representative of the Federation of Alector

Uh...wait - what? Now how 'broad' a course is its determinant.

In that case, I would like to propose the learning of 'stuff' be made mandatory. Optional, but encouraged, should be the learning of 'things'. I will lay down and die before I see this proposal exclude 'how stuff works, you know'. I think you'll agree these are much preferable to narrow, overly specific terms such as 'maths' and 'languages'.Don't be silly. You know exactly what I am saying, Ms. Benson. Unless, of course, I'm mistaking your level of intelligence, which I do not think I am. Compared to the intricacies and personalization of sex education (what a nation even deem acceptable as 'sex', for instance), the general fields of science and religion are far more broad. When you think of elementary science, what do you think of? I think of learning about the solar system, the kingdoms of life, plant and animal cells, elements, etc. When I think of sex education, I'm bound to think of something different than you are. In my primary school sex education class, mind you it was a much more conservative time, I learned about how babies are made and what them male side of puberty is; that was it, really. Today, the children of Glen-Rhodes are learning about sexually transmitted diseases, safe sex, both sides of puberty, and everything else under the sexualized sun. This difference in culture is what I am talking about, Ms. Benson. It's this difference in culture that makes each nation more apt in mandating their own sex education classes.


*sob*

Could you at least pretend to respond to my initial point? This proposal conflates the teaching of with the teaching about, despite their being distinct subject areas. Its problems will not be resolved by refusing to acknowledge the existence of this conflation.If I hadn't acknowledged it, I wouldn't have responded to it. Tell me, are you now telling me not to use "about"? Tell me exactly what you're looking for, Ms. Benson, because I have no clue now.

You have not provided any such corollary to justify your exclusion of sex education. For example: do you feel that countries with high rates of HIV/AIDS transmission also tend to be economic juggernauts? Do you feel that learning about the changes that happen to your own body impediments socialisation? If so, this is of course fine: but you need to say so.

You also suggest my counter is 'acceptable'. If so, that means you need to come up with new reasons. So, um those would be...?No, and yes, to be concise. In terms of socialization, or enculturation, the subjects taught in sex education very well may be impediments to learning one's culture. This, again, is why separate nations are more apt to deal with this issue.

I'm not familiar with the expression 'religious right'.Are you familiar with the political spectrum? Where left is liberal and right is conservative? The 'religious right' is the group of people that push their religious and conservative views on the world, while demonizing any liberal, secular views.

I'm not familiar with the expression 'cultural identity', either. (There's a good article by R. Brubaker and F. Cooper in the journal Theory & Society critiquing the very use of the word 'identity', if it's something you're interested in.)

Nonetheless, I would be surprised if this 'cultural identity' did not also play a role in shaping religious education? The only way your objection stands is iff 'cultural identity' shapes sex education and iff 'cultural identity' does not shape religious education. Do you believe this to be the case?'Cultural identity' is an expression denoting that nations have cultural characteristics that set them apart from other nations. When speaking of culture, I am speaking about all the unique aspects of life within a nation. This may very well include religion, but it doesn't depend on religion. There would certainly be an argument about whether or not culture shapes religion, but it's usually the other way around. Given that, my opinion is that religion shapes religious education.

Third, you are, as I've already pointed out, not really concerned with protecting science at all. If you were so, you would also be addressing non-religious intellectual corruption: for example, political doctrine masquerading as science, or the inclusion of spiritualism in science class, or simply the use of bad science. It is as dangerous to teach ether theory as it is irreducible complexity.That would do nothing more than render this proposal illegal. The current rules make no distinction between banning political 'oppression' in the classroom, and banning a political ideology. An expert, and by this I do not mean you or I, of the rules would be best to clear this up. Should it not violate the rules, then a clause preventing political indoctrination is a possibility.

Fourth, once more, your definition of science is that it is 'universally accepted'. There follows no logical way it can be constructed to disagree with religion, or else it would not be universally accepted.This is fair, and I thought I had fixed this. I could use the definition "the effort to discover, and increase understanding of how the physical world works", if you can't poke a thousands holes in it.

First, whence are deriving this 'traditional' curriculum?

-- Samantha BensonI use words lightly, Ms. Benson. You use words in a binding way. It's one of the sources of discontent between you and I. When I say 'traditional', I obviously mean the basic subjects that most people think of. Language arts (reading & writing), science, and mathematics are, I trust, the most common.


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

Your description of some imaginary "traditional" curriculum which "most people think of" shows a distinct lack of broad experience and full knowledge of this field, honoured Ambassador.

The presumptions you are making are too narrow, too unsubtle and seemingly rather under researched.



Yours e.t.c ,

Your description of some imaginary "traditional" curriculum which "most people think of" shows a distinct lack of broad experience and full knowledge of this field, honoured Ambassador.

The presumptions you are making are too narrow, too unsubtle and seemingly rather under researched.



Yours e.t.c ,To be blunt, you're making a fuss over nothing, Ambassador. If I really need to statistically substantiate a claim like "traditional" or "general curriculum", then we've gone too far with the whole bureaucracy system.

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

Very well, honoured Ambassador. We are making a fuss over nothing. Have it your way.

Our point, as you know well honoured Ambassador, has always been that if this resolution could really ever hope to effect a qualitative improvement in standards of education then it must apply subtle and broad minded measures which encompass as many conceptions of a good education and the outcomes of such as possible.

Deciding in advance what should be considered as traditional or universal or cultural common property in an organisation as diverse as this one is foolhardy in our opinion. We have explained to you, honoured Ambassador, how your conceptions of basic standards of education are completely alien to ours and you have no way of determining whether ours, yours or any other alternative view is common ( or for that matter correct ) or not.

Creating good basic standards of education is a laudable aim, but forcing one narrow view of what a good education actually is on the w.a. and the billions of citizens of its member states is in our opinion wrong and undesirable.

We have tried to help you, honoured Ambassador, and we have done so in earnest, we have even defended you when other highly experienced delegations condemned you as inflexible and your work as wrong headed both here and elsewhere. We did this because we believed your esteemed delegation had good intentions and could be shown how to improve its work with the advice of other nations. Our own reputation has been staked in placing such faith in your delegation and indeed we have risked souring our relations with nations who's goodwill we value highly.

But again have it your own way honoured Ambassador, we are making too much fuss and should hold our tongues and leave you to your work in peace.


Yours with regret,

Alector has said all it can in favor of this proposal. But if this is truly the reason you believe this was presented to the World Assembly, it seems to me this is a personal dispute. I am here to debate the relative merit of WA proposals, not to involve myself in your vendetta against Dr. Castro.
Not in the slightest: I have no 'vendetta' against the good Doctor, and am in fact very grateful to him for his lengthy replies. The WA discussions of late have rather bored me, and this is a rare diamond in the rough. I can't say I agree with him that students should be prohibited by international law from learning, but I certainly don't have any inate dislike for him.

OOC: Sorry to break out of character, but I mean the above quite seriously. If others are getting tired of this debate I apologise, because I am actually quite enjoying it. It really has been a while since a debate I've been involved in in the WA forum has gone this in-depth, and I have every bit of respect and admiration for Glen-Rhodes for humouring me at length for so long.
Don't be silly. You know exactly what I am saying, Ms. Benson. Unless, of course, I'm mistaking your level of intelligence, which I do not think I am. Compared to the intricacies and personalization of sex education (what a nation even deem acceptable as 'sex', for instance), the general fields of science and religion are far more broad. When you think of elementary science, what do you think of? I think of learning about the solar system, the kingdoms of life, plant and animal cells, elements, etc. When I think of sex education, I'm bound to think of something different than you are. In my primary school sex education class, mind you it was a much more conservative time, I learned about how babies are made and what them male side of puberty is; that was it, really. Today, the children of Glen-Rhodes are learning about sexually transmitted diseases, safe sex, both sides of puberty, and everything else under the sexualized sun. This difference in culture is what I am talking about, Ms. Benson. It's this difference in culture that makes each nation more apt in mandating their own sex education classes.
First: that's not what you originally said. You simply stated that sex education was less 'broad' than science education, not that it was more culturally subjective. You cannot explain a point by entirely shifting the goalposts.

Second: you have, in your example, provided a case where within the same nation the understanding of sex education changed dramatically. As such, your contention that nations are necessarily best placed to determine the content of sex education courses seems decidedly dicey.

Third: (and I think I will return to this point) you have adopted a notion of 'culture' that is fixed to national identity. I question how valid this is. I don't know about your nation's religious composition, but let's assume that you have a few Muslims. A Muslim from Glen-Rhodes is likely to culturally identify more with a Muslim from Quintessence of Dust than with an atheist from Glen-Rhodes, despite their shared of nationality. National identity can be very strong, but it is not necessarily stronger than, in this case, the umma.

Fourth: the idea that you and I conceive of the content of sex education differently is not an especially strong argument. While I agree that you and I would probably conceive of broadly similar courses in, say, mathematics, that we would, for example, compile identical reading lists for a reading course is much more dubious. The content of history courses has been a focus of fierce political dispute in Quintessence of Dust: consider the furore over the book Fibs My Teacher Told Me, or the proposed - and since abandoned - 'Guidelines', which tried to emphasise subaltern moments in history while, in the views of traditionalist educators, pushing a radical, anti-Quodite agenda. The very notion of objectivity in history is in much dispute (see, for example, That Noble Dream).

Fifth: you raise a disturbing point in your invocation of "what a nation even deem acceptable as 'sex'". I dispute that a 'nation' is capable of 'deeming' anything. A nation is a political unit, not an organism with a mind capable of making value judgments. But, insofar as nations have sought to proscribe sexual activities in the past, we come up with every lawyer's favourite: precedent. At least twice in the past, in the Freedom of Marriage and Sexual Privacy Acts (Resolutions #15 and #16) the WA has passed laws on sexual acts that nullify national rights in this area. So given the WA has defined what sexual acts are legal, if not acceptable, it seems reasonable for them to be taught about.
If I hadn't acknowledged it, I wouldn't have responded to it. Tell me, are you now telling me not to use "about"? Tell me exactly what you're looking for, Ms. Benson, because I have no clue now.
Ok.

One of my concerns about the way you've handled this science and religion issue is that it is overly broad. You have assumed the only possible way the two might encounter one another is through teaching of religion within a science classroom. I am trying to show that there are many other ways they might intertwine, in ways that by and large are of little obvious educational detriment. For example:
- a history course would have to take in both religious and scientific events, thought and figures (for example, the Merton Thesis);
- a literature course might examine a work that explores both religious and scientific themes (for example, Anna Karenina);
- a government/civics/social studies/whatever it's called course [not, I know, part of the required curriculum in this proposal, but a course many nations no doubt teach] might look at government decisions about science and religion (for example, the funding of intercessary prayer research).

As I read your proposal, the above three are all now verboten, unless schools have the copious resources to lay on three separate streams. While I would agree with a law keeping religion out of the science classroom (though again, I do not feel this proposal is the place for it), I do not think children will be scarred by reading Anna Karenina; in fact, were it not illegal, I'd vote for a resolution requiring it!
No, and yes, to be concise. In terms of socialization, or enculturation, the subjects taught in sex education very well may be impediments to learning one's culture. This, again, is why separate nations are more apt to deal with this issue.
Seriously? You think that someone who doesn't understand why their body has just grown hair or breasts, someone who doesn't know why they experience periods or mood swings or erections, someone who doesn't know what sex is, is better prepared to deal with the outside world than someone who does? If so, then I fear we are approaching the limits of mutual comprehension.
Are you familiar with the political spectrum? Where left is liberal and right is conservative? The 'religious right' is the group of people that push their religious and conservative views on the world, while demonizing any liberal, secular views.
Ah, I see. For someone so keen to link 'cultural identity' limitlessly and absolutely with 'national identity', you have an odd presumption of the universality of political culture.

In Quintessence of Dust, there is little history of religious involvement in politics, but insofar as it there is, it has come mostly from the left: the 'social gospel' of Walter Rauschenschrub has been quite influential in Social Democratic circles. Our Prime Minister is indeed a Christian, whereas the leader of the Liberal opposition an outspoken religious sceptic. Furthermore, the Liberal Party (prior to their fraction) were the self-declared party of individual rights, free markets, and laissez-faire government in keeping with the 'classic liberal' tradition.

Still I am, quite contrary to your concerns, eminently convinced you are not a member of this 'religious right'. However, merely declaring yourself opposed to them should not automatically render you immune to criticism.
'Cultural identity' is an expression denoting that nations have cultural characteristics that set them apart from other nations. When speaking of culture, I am speaking about all the unique aspects of life within a nation. This may very well include religion, but it doesn't depend on religion. There would certainly be an argument about whether or not culture shapes religion, but it's usually the other way around. Given that, my opinion is that religion shapes religious education.
I have added emphasis to illustrate what I see as our most fundamental difference about the nature of culture.

In Quintessence of Dust, there is an important body of scholarship devoted to explaining the 'sectional' differences between the North, the South, and the East. And we are just a nation of 5 million. I imagine in many larger countries, sectional differences are more various and more concrete. Civil wars seem to break out every day somewhere in the world. This would suggest nations are less culturally homogenous than you suggest.

Yet you also seem to be contradicting yourself in your support for the concreteness of religious traditions. We know some religions exist in more than one country. If, then, religion is the prime factor in determining the content of a religious education class, it would follow the cultural factors are inherently transnational. That is, a Taoist is a Taoist, whether they live in one nation or another.

I would also point that Quintessence of Dust represents a profoundly differently cultural millieu to Urgench. Yet we appear in political accord on a great many issues with their representative, Khan Monghka. Various comments in this debate would suggest Glen-Rhodes is much more similar to Quintessence of Dust. Yet we disagree on this proposal. This would suggest that cultural differences are less important in determining political preferences than you imply.
That would do nothing more than render this proposal illegal. The current rules make no distinction between banning political 'oppression' in the classroom, and banning a political ideology. An expert, and by this I do not mean you or I, of the rules would be best to clear this up. Should it not violate the rules, then a clause preventing political indoctrination is a possibility.
While we await such expert counsel, I will proffer my non-learned opinion: of course banning Lysenkoism isn't illegal. Banning Stalinism might well be; banning authoritarian state capitalism certainly would be. To legalise gay marriage is not to ban Judaism; it follows that to prohibit one social consequence of a political ideology is not to invoke the Ban on Ideologies rule.

But, I'm not advocating the inclusion of a ban on political indoctrination. Well, I wouldn't oppose it. But it doesn't really answer my concern, which is that the preservation of scientific integrity is not isolated to opposition to religious infiltration. Any non-scientific doctrine masquerading as science represents a threat. As I said before, if you are to ban the teaching of religion in the science classroom, you should ban the teaching of Lamarckianism, and of ether theory, and the discussion of ghosts and Bigtoe (a creature of Quodite folklore).

I also think your emphasis on the opposition of religion and science represents a distinct moment in Glen-Rhodes's political history, where this is obviously an issue of considerable import. Consider, though, other histories: for example, when Quintessence of Dust briefly had a fascist government, maths textbooks for young children included questions such as these (http://www2.facinghistory.org/Campus/rm.nsf/61A7F88FF16FBD9585256E8E001178AC/A3F0966ED25644E385257180005E5D71?OpenDocument) (obviously, these questions come from a different country). They had nothing to do with religion - in fact, religious leaders condemned their inclusion! - yet they clearly are inappropriate, because they use children's mathematics as a tool for social propagandisation (for, I might add, distinctly unsavoury ends).

If, at the end of this haggling, you achieve an absolutely exemplary wording of the definitions of 'science' and 'religion' and succeed in meeting and seeing off all the objections to the current prohibition, you will still have only covered one out of any number of ways in which academic teaching can be corrupted. You have tried, a couple of times, to paint me as promoting some strongly anti-religious ideology. I am not. I am in fact saying: give the creationists a break. They are not the only people trying to meddle with what kids learn to suit their own ideologies, and to target them and no one else is narrow-minded.
This is fair, and I thought I had fixed this. I could use the definition "the effort to discover, and increase understanding of how the physical world works", if you can't poke a thousands holes in it.
Change 'physical' to 'natural', and consider adding in 'through observation and experimentation', and you'd be off to the races as far as I'm concerned.
I use words lightly, Ms. Benson. You use words in a binding way. It's one of the sources of discontent between you and I. When I say 'traditional', I obviously mean the basic subjects that most people think of. Language arts (reading & writing), science, and mathematics are, I trust, the most common.
Instead of 'trust', how about reliance on polling data? Do you have a survey to prove that 'most people' think of what you say they do? Or are you simply waving to the crowd?

You are right, though, that I tend to use words in a binding way. That's because, as a lawyer, I have learned the importance of clear language in what are, after all, binding laws.

-- Samantha Benson

OOC: I wasn't being serious in my accusation. I was just playing in character. I actually wasn't tired of the debate, but I was trying to discredit you, as my nation's representative would be the type to go that route.

First: that's not what you originally said. You simply stated that sex education was less 'broad' than science education, not that it was more culturally subjective. You cannot explain a point by entirely shifting the goalposts.My honest mistake, Ms. Benson. I should have been more clear in my response. I'll admit that I have a problem of not including my entire thought in to a response, which, had I done so, would have cleared up any mistaken meaning. Subjective, though, is a much better word to use than broad.

Second: you have, in your example, provided a case where within the same nation the understanding of sex education changed dramatically. As such, your contention that nations are necessarily best placed to determine the content of sex education courses seems decidedly dicey.That's my point, Ms. Benson. Are we to repeal and rewrite an education act each time the 'collective unconscious' changes, in regards to sex? A feat that you, yourself, have stated is quite rare. National law can be amended all they want, should a government allow it. Again, another point for leaving it up to nations to create sex education laws.

Third: (and I think I will return to this point) you have adopted a notion of 'culture' that is fixed to national identity. I question how valid this is. I don't know about your nation's religious composition, but let's assume that you have a few Muslims. A Muslim from Glen-Rhodes is likely to culturally identify more with a Muslim from Quintessence of Dust than with an atheist from Glen-Rhodes, despite their shared of nationality. National identity can be very strong, but it is not necessarily stronger than, in this case, the umma.I'm not suggesting that culture within a nation is entirely homogeneous. But, I think that it's not fair to say that most nations have a majority culture. Perhaps their culture is a culture of equality, and the limitations of cultural identity on something like sex education are moot.

I believe that, despite the argument you have given, my point has gotten across. Whether it be national, cultural, religious, or moral identity, sex education is shaped by the locale where it is taught. It is possible to mandate a course teaching about bodily functions in relation to maturing, but I'm reluctant to write anything else. Note that it is not because I don't believe that sex education isn't valuable, but it is because I believe that different cultures have different views on sex, and the joys and consequences attached to it.

Fifth: you raise a disturbing point in your invocation of "what a nation even deem acceptable as 'sex'". I dispute that a 'nation' is capable of 'deeming' anything. A nation is a political unit, not an organism with a mind capable of making value judgments. But, insofar as nations have sought to proscribe sexual activities in the past, we come up with every lawyer's favourite: precedent. At least twice in the past, in the Freedom of Marriage and Sexual Privacy Acts (Resolutions #15 and #16) the WA has passed laws on sexual acts that nullify national rights in this area. So given the WA has defined what sexual acts are legal, if not acceptable, it seems reasonable for them to be taught about.This bewilders me. The World Assembly is the largest political unit in the universe, as far as I'm concerned, and we make judgments on value all the time. We've banned slavery on the virtues that it is morally wrong, not on the virtues of economics. Neither the Freedom of Marriage nor the Sexual Privacy Act define "acceptable sexual acts". The only definition of sex given is in the Sexual Privacy Act is: "any acts between two or more individuals which involve stimulation of the sexual organs". Different cultures -- cultures, not governments, mind you -- have different ideas of what is acceptable in regards to sex. These ideas are mutual, for the most part; the definition of culture makes them mutual. What I want to do is protect these ideas, and not write a sweeping clause telling cultures what they have to teach about sex, whether or not it's acceptable to them.

One of my concerns about the way you've handled this science and religion issue is that it is overly broad. You have assumed the only possible way the two might encounter one another is through teaching of religion within a science classroom. I am trying to show that there are many other ways they might intertwine, in ways that by and large are of little obvious educational detriment. For example:
- a history course would have to take in both religious and scientific events, thought and figures (for example, the Merton Thesis);
- a literature course might examine a work that explores both religious and scientific themes (for example, Anna Karenina);
- a government/civics/social studies/whatever it's called course [not, I know, part of the required curriculum in this proposal, but a course many nations no doubt teach] might look at government decisions about science and religion (for example, the funding of intercessary prayer research).

As I read your proposal, the above three are all now verboten, unless schools have the copious resources to lay on three separate streams. While I would agree with a law keeping religion out of the science classroom (though again, I do not feel this proposal is the place for it), I do not think children will be scarred by reading Anna Karenina; in fact, were it not illegal, I'd vote for a resolution requiring it!Very well, Ms. Benson. I have, to my credit, stated that a hybrid history course would be well within the limitations of this proposal. But, I see what you are saying, and I wish you would have said all of this much sooner in this debate. I am still weary of leaving out "a law keeping religion out of the science classroom", though. I have been working on a rewrite for the past few days, and I'm going to propose one last option. Should this not work, then a separate proposal for the protect of religion from science, and vice-versa, will be the next option. I'd like to avoid that, however.

Seriously? You think that someone who doesn't understand why their body has just grown hair or breasts, someone who doesn't know why they experience periods or mood swings or erections, someone who doesn't know what sex is, is better prepared to deal with the outside world than someone who does? If so, then I fear we are approaching the limits of mutual comprehension.Are you assuming that most people partake in some international, intercultural, migration in their lives? The only way this argument works is if you are. If a boy's culture teaching him that he gets acne because he masturbates, then that's perfectly fine. I would, in fact, be disgusted if the World Assembly attempted to force a change on that culture. They are as prepared as they need to be, for their own culture.

While we await such expert counsel, I will proffer my non-learned opinion: of course banning Lysenkoism isn't illegal. Banning Stalinism might well be; banning authoritarian state capitalism certainly would be. To legalise gay marriage is not to ban Judaism; it follows that to prohibit one social consequence of a political ideology is not to invoke the Ban on Ideologies rule.However, you aren't suggesting a prohibition of a single social aspect of a political ideology. You are suggesting that education needs protection from political ideologies, period (which is something that I do support). To ban the indoctrination of Stalinism, is, in all respects, to ban Stalinism. After all, is it really far-fetched to say that radical governments cannot exist without propaganda and indoctrination?

Instead of 'trust', how about reliance on polling data? Do you have a survey to prove that 'most people' think of what you say they do? Or are you simply waving to the crowd?Quibbling over a rather elementary idea, Ms. Benson? Let's not. The members of this assembly are -- rather, I hope they are -- able to realize when a generalization is a generalization. If you need proof, though, then just look through the proposals on education, and their debates. You will find common classes. It was even suggested here, for some time, that the proposal stick to the "three R's" of education; that is, the three most common courses in education: reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Finally, as I had mentioned earlier, I have been working on a revision of article III. I imagine that it will bring another strain of debate, but I'll take my chances. My lungs are not dead, yet.

ACKNOWLEDGING that many member nations lack an organized educational system, either by choice or otherwise,

REALIZING that education promotes economic and social growth,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE 'education' as the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the abilities of reasoning and judgment, and to generally prepare oneself or others for mature life.
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.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by any means deemed appropriate.

III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education, affecting all government-funded, or otherwise publicly owned or operated education systems:
a) SUCH a standard shall consist of language arts, mathematics, history, science, and sex education as defined by this resolution, that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) DEFINING the following courses:
i) language arts as listening, reading, writing, and speaking in a given language
ii) mathematics as learning and applying basic arithmetic and geometric operations
iii) history as learning of records and narrative descriptions of significant past events and people, in respect to the WA member nation
iv) science as the effort to discover, and increase understanding of how the natural world works, through observation and experimentation
v) sex education as learning of sexual anatomy, sexual reproduction, and sexual maturation, and the consequences thereof.
c) PROHIBIT political and religious indoctrination, in the forms including, but not limited to: propaganda, manipulation, brainwashing, thought termination, nationalism, and recruitment.
d) PROTECT the right of nations to enculture students in ways not considered to be politically or religiously indoctrinating.
e) ENCOURAGE and PROTECT a nation's choice to go beyond the standards set in this resolution.

IV) MANDATE that all WA member nations make education, as defined under this Act, readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of high-level brain activity.

V) MANDATE that financial aid for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, given that the nation falls under one or more qualifications listed below:
a) the nation is unable to fiscally meet the requirements of this resolution, after instituting every possible fund-raising operation, within the means of maintaining economic stability, or
b) the nation has no existing educational system or infrastructure.

VI) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid, based on the legitimacy of the requests.


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

We oppose any measure which would seek to take decisions concerning educational curriculums out of the hands of the government of Aundotutunagir. The purpose of education is to mold children into proper citizens of Aundotutunagir and we know best how to accomplish that.

Without proper indoctrination in both science and the teachings of the Church of Aundotutunagir, these children will grow up entirely unqualified to take part in the vital construction, military and research projects which are necessary to advance the goals of the people of Aundotutunagir.

I request that clause III, c be removed. It is unreasonable to expect that schools will not teach such things as nationalism, or attempt to instill religious indoctrination in students.

I request that clause III, c be removed. It is unreasonable to expect that schools will not teach such things as nationalism, or attempt to instill religious indoctrination in students.Glen-Rhodes' school system doesn't indoctrinate its students. As far as I can tell, Quintessence of Dust's doesn't either. So, it's a perfectly reasonable expectation. Besides, I expect nations to provide proper education for their citizens, but that's doesn't mean that they do. Hence, the entire purpose of this proposal.

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

i see the details concerning the religious, scientific, and/or sex ed. have been removed. i support their removals, however, i don't quite fully understand the newer parts in clause 3? may an ambassador, care to better explain them, so i can find a stance? we would be much abliged.

Wachichi

i see the details concerning the religious, scientific, and/or sex ed. have been removed. i support their removals, however, i don't quite fully understand the newer parts in clause 3? may an ambassador, care to better explain them, so i can find a stance? we would be much abliged.

Wachichi
I'm assuming you mean the following:
c) PROHIBIT political and religious indoctrination, in the forms including, but not limited to: propaganda, manipulation, brainwashing, thought termination, nationalism, and recruitment.
d) PROTECT the right of nations to enculture students in ways not considered to be politically or religiously indoctrinating.
Section c prohibits any nation from instilling religious or political ideas, ideals, and ideologies, to students. However, it does this through prohibiting indoctrinating, which is to teach someone to accept doctrines uncritically. Therefore, a nation may teach about politics and religion, but cannot teach it in a way that promotes it.

Conversely, but not quite oppositely, section d protects a nation's right to instill cultural ideas. This is what I expect will generate a considerable amount of debate, because it is hard to draw a line between religion and culture, when culture is based on religion. I'm hoping that a debate will give way to a more clear clause.

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

c) PROHIBIT political and religious indoctrination, in the forms including, but not limited to: propaganda, manipulation, brainwashing, thought termination, nationalism, and recruitment.

Rutianas strongly opposes this clause simply for the mention of nationalism. While my own personal views would approve and applaud it, I have been informed by the Emperor to request that nationalism be removed as it is a valid form of government that is followed by some nations within the WA. Our own form of government can be perceived as nationalist among other things. If we cannot teach our children about nationalism, then we would be forced to change our form of government or just teach about our government without instilling any sense of pride in our Republic. This would make our government classes very dull and ineffective.

Dr. Castro may be thrilled about one less nationalist country, as others may be, but it would be the start of ending a way of life for those nations within the WA who are nationalist.

As for the mention of recruitment, our Emperor has asked for a clarification on what is meant by recruitment before further comment may be made on that particular word in the clause.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Rutianas strongly opposes this clause simply for the mention of nationalism. While my own personal views would approve and applaud it, I have been informed by the Emperor to request that nationalism be removed as it is a valid form of government that is followed by some nations within the WA. Our own form of government can be perceived as nationalist among other things. If we cannot teach our children about nationalism, then we would be forced to change our form of government or just teach about our government without instilling any sense of pride in our Republic. This would make our government classes very dull and ineffective. So, the goal of educating students in Rutianas is to instill nationalist ideologies in them? Or, do you want to reword that last sentence? Either way, the classroom is no place for propaganda, which is what you're asking we allow. You can teach your students whatever you please, but you may not indoctrinate them. This does not prevent Ruitanas from telling their students how great their country is; it prevents Ruitanas from telling their students that their country is great the way it is, and that they should never go against it. There is a clear different between instilling a sense nationalism and indoctrinating nationalism.

As for the mention of recruitment, our Emperor has asked for a clarification on what is meant by recruitment before further comment may be made on that particular word in the clause.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas AmbassadorAbout thirty years ago, when I was a university professor, the government of Glen-Rhodes, under a rather undeserving (to say the least) Chancellor, forced educators to encourage students to enlist in the military when they turned 18 (the minimum age for enlistment). It was no surprise that the size of the armed forces increased by an astounding 45% over the next twenty years, for no reason other than the indoctrination of susceptible minds. This proposal aims to prevent such a misuse of power from happening again.

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

Much better. You still have my opposition for allowing the private sector to ignore your universal standards, what I still reckon to be an unnatural definition of "child", and the way you now ban the teaching of religion and politics to primary school kids at all, but I'm sure you'll consider that a small matter.

So, the goal of educating students in Rutianas is to instill nationalist ideologies in them? Or, do you want to reword that last sentence? Either way, the classroom is no place for propaganda, which is what you're asking we allow. You can teach your students whatever you please, but you may not indoctrinate them. This does not prevent Ruitanas from telling their students how great their country is; it prevents Ruitanas from telling their students that their country is great the way it is, and that they should never go against it. There is a clear different between instilling a sense nationalism and indoctrinating nationalism.

I do not wish to reword anything. What I am saying is that you will have forced us to alter our entire educational system as we are a nationalist state and of course we do teach our students about our success as a Republic.

A typical day in a Rutian school begins the day with our national anthem and our national pledge, which according to your proposal in it's current form, will be illegal since it goes against your personal thoughts of what is appropriate.

About thirty years ago, when I was a university professor, the government of Glen-Rhodes, under a rather undeserving (to say the least) Chancellor, forced educators to encourage students to enlist in the military when they turned 18 (the minimum age for enlistment). It was no surprise that the size of the armed forces increased by an astounding 45% over the next twenty years, for no reason other than the indoctrination of susceptible minds. This proposal aims to prevent such a misuse of power from happening again.

And what business is it of yours if educators encourage students to enlist? Perhaps legislation should be put in place to prevent that particular misuse of power from happening, but teachers shouldn't be so limited in their abilities to educate. If a teacher spent several years in the military, they should be allowed to encourage the young to consider enlisting.

And what about countries who have conscription? We do teach about the military in our schools because it is required that every Rutian citizen spend no less than five years in military service. We encourage our young to prepare themselves. Again, that would be illegal under your standards.

Your own personal experiences should not find their way into legislation, unless your true aim here is to make every nation a carbon copy of your own personal idea of a utopia.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Much better. You still have my opposition for allowing the private sector to ignore your universal standards, what I still reckon to be an unnatural definition of "child", and the way you now ban the teaching of religion and politics to primary school kids at all, but I'm sure you'll consider that a small matter.

I would agree with the definition of child. The majority of Rutianas education falls within the definition of 'primary' education. Of course, we do not call it that, but under this definition, it would force us to rework our entire education system, which would in turn affect our culture and general way of life.

I'm beginning to think that this is a topic that the WA has no business legislating this deeply. The Child Protection Act ensures a basic education to each child. Why should we concern ourselves with how it is taught. Just get the basics in where both private and public schools are concerned. Reading. Writing. Arithmetic. Anything else should be up to the individual nation.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

We think the draft is much improved for its exclusion of the discussion of religion and its inclusion of sex education. However, we certainly hope the inclusion of III (c) was not at our behest (I did earlier say 'I'm not advocating the inclusion of a ban on political indoctrination'). The reason I brought up political interference with scientific education was to demonstrate the narrow-mindedness, as I saw it, of excluding religious interference with scientific education while permitting other kinds. Now that you have shied away from that stance, my prior concern is moot.

Although I'd be hard-pressed to oppose language against 'indoctrination' and 'propaganda', I'm not sure my nation will support it either. The reasons are twofold:

1. Practicality. While it's certainly very ambitious and hopeful to try for this, it seems overly optimistic. A state that wishes to pursue propaganda - and most states have done so at one point or another - is going to do so. Absent complete neutral review of all teaching materials - which is wildly impractical - it seems a bit of a pipe dream.

2. Definition. Quintessence of Dust likes to pride itself on its liberality, tolerance, diversity: on being 'an open society'. But at the same time, we never fail to remind these children of these values. And there are some, very few really, who cling to the notion that this amounts to 'brainwashing'. (These people tend to wear foil hats, have their own private water supplies, and stockpile guns in their bunkers.) I mean, if we teach children that racism is bad, is that propaganda? If we have a day honouring famous Quodite transsexuals, is that 'nationalism'? Some - otherwise very liberal - countries might include such things as saluting a flag, or reciting an oath, or wearing a uniform incorporating the national flag, into their school routines.

I also hasten to add that in the example you posited in response to the Ambassador of Rutianas, the issue of military recruitment in educational facilities is an incredibly thorny one in Quintessence of Dust, and no doubt elsewhere. It can probably not be solved by one line in a proposal.

So, we have nothing like the objection to III (c) that we did to the language about science and religion, but we don't feel we can support its inclusion either.

Two other things:
- on the definition of 'child', I guess agree with Undersecretary Coch, but: what definition should be used?
- is the committee really necessary? It's not really doing any education-related things, just approving funding applications, which can be handled by the WA General Fund under review of the GAO.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

...and the way you now ban the teaching of religion and politics to primary school kids at all, but I'm sure you'll consider that a small matter.Not at all, Undersecretary Coch. Teaching of religion and politics is not banned, teaching children to accept religious and political doctrines uncritically is what is being banned.
I do not wish to reword anything. What I am saying is that you will have forced us to alter our entire educational system...

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador
... it would force us to rework our entire education system, which would in turn affect our culture and general way of life.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador
I find it most entertaining that some think an education proposal should only go so far, until it reaches a point where a nation will actually have to change something. I do hope the Ambassador of Rutianas is joking, here. I'm sure that the ban on slavery had a massive affect on the culture and "general way of life" of slave states. Same for homophobic theocracies and the passing of the Freedom of Marriage Act. To suggest that a proposal is somehow flawed because major changes have to take place is ludicrous.
We think the draft is much improved for its exclusion of the discussion of religion and its inclusion of sex education. However, we certainly hope the inclusion of III (c) was not at our behest (I did earlier say 'I'm not advocating the inclusion of a ban on political indoctrination').Not at your behest, no, Ms. Benson. What you said simply made me aware of something that I had not thought of. It has been ages since I've had to deal with issues such as political indoctrination, so it had not readily crossed my mind that it was still a problem in the greater world. Age, as it seems, does actually take its toll.

Although I'd be hard-pressed to oppose language against 'indoctrination' and 'propaganda', I'm not sure my nation will support it either. The reasons are twofold:

[cut.. ]

So, we have nothing like the objection to III (c) that we did to the language about science and religion, but we don't feel we can support its inclusion either.I've considered removing the forms, and just leaving the clause to ban political and religious indoctrination. I could also provide a definition of indoctrination (teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically), to clear up any confusion.

Though, doing such would be entirely more sweeping, and I fear that ill-definition would be a problem in the future. It seems, though, that most of the confusion can be cleared up by simply well defining indoctrination. Whereas stating a national pledge each day may not be indoctrinating, standing in formation and marching around campus while waving flags and chanting of the superiority of your leader, may very well be. What is difficult is separating the ideas of positive indoctrination -- such as reciting a pledge each morning -- and negative indoctrination. I'm sure it can be done, though.


- is the committee really necessary? It's not really doing any education-related things, just approving funding applications, which can be handled by the WA General Fund under review of the GAO.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of WysteriaIf there were limits on what could be bought, then the committee would be rather useless. But, there are none. I opted to create a committee, so that the GAO isn't overloaded with requests to redo school floors in gold-lined marble. That is what is intended by "legitimacy", by the way.

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

What exactly is so harmless or indeed positive about reciting a "pledge" every morning? A pledge to what or to whom honoured Ambassador?

Pledges, promises and oathes may have deep cultural and social meaning and may be of the utmost significance to those who make them, binding them intrinsically to that which they are pledged to.


Yours, Ryabat Goizam, Princess of Tocharistan, cultural attache to the permanent mission of Urgench to the World Assembly.

What exactly is so harmless or indeed positive about reciting a "pledge" every morning? A pledge to what or to whom honoured Ambassador?

Pledges, promises and oathes may have deep cultural and social meaning and may be of the utmost significance to those who make them, binding them intrinsically to that which they are pledged to.


Yours, Ryabat Goizam, Princess of Tocharistan, cultural attache to the permanent mission of Urgench to the World Assembly.

It's hard to draw a line so definitively, Princess Goizam. In Glen-Rhodes, there is a national pledge that simply states to protect one's freedom, no matter how oppressive the government may be (a shining insight in to the long, arduous history of the commonwealth). Surely that's harmless. But, what if it said to cherish the nation? Is that indoctrinating? Is it forcing students to have an unsubstantiated pride in their nation? What if their nation is the closest thing to utopia? What if it's an oppressive regime?

Again, a line is hard to draw so definitively.

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

It's hard to draw a line so definitively, Princess Goizam. In Glen-Rhodes, there is a national pledge that simply states to protect one's freedom, no matter how oppressive the government may be (a shining insight in to the long, arduous history of the commonwealth). Surely that's harmless. But, what if it said to cherish the nation? Is that indoctrinating? Is it forcing students to have an unsubstantiated pride in their nation? What if their nation is the closest thing to utopia? What if it's an oppressive regime?

Again, a line is hard to draw so definitively.

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



Well then do not draw it honoured Ambassador, splitting hairs about the nature of indoctrination or healthy nationalism seems like counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin when one is drawing up an educational standards statute. Or is the intent to draw up a total vision of the honoured Ambassador's ideal form of education system for the entire w.a. ?


Yours, Ryabat Goizam, Princess of Tocharistan, Cultural attache to the permanent mission of Urgench to the World Assembly.

Well then do not draw it honoured Ambassador, splitting hairs about the nature of indoctrination or healthy nationalism seems like counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin when one is drawing up an educational standards statute. Or is the intent to draw up a total vision of the honoured Ambassador's ideal form of education system for the entire w.a. ?


Yours, Ryabat Goizam, Princess of Tocharistan, Cultural attache to the permanent mission of Urgench to the World Assembly.

I'm drawing no such line, Princess Goizam. I'm simply providing commentary. I value thinking out loud.

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

We never suggested that you were drawing that line honoured Dr. Bradford. We were merely suggesting that your resolution need not include the social engineering inherent in the directives it currently contains on indoctrination and nationalism, and that in continuing to keep these provisions this resolution runs the risk of appearing like a clumsy attempt at direct social engineering on a model familiar in Glen Rhodes but without the virtue of any moral universality.

Yours, Ryabat Goizam, Princess of Tocharistan, cultural attache to the permanent mission of Urgench to the w.a.

We never suggested that you were drawing that line honoured Dr. Bradford. We were merely suggesting that your resolution need not include the social engineering inherent in the directives it currently contains on indoctrination and nationalism, and that in continuing to keep these provisions this resolution runs the risk of appearing like a clumsy attempt at direct social engineering on a model familiar in Glen Rhodes but without the virtue of any moral universality.

Yours, Ryabat Goizam, Princess of Tocharistan, cultural attache to the permanent mission of Urgench to the w.a.

I'd like to think that the World Assembly has achieved the general moral consensus that indoctrination, especially of children, is not OK, Princess Goizam.

I have already expressed an inclination of removing the forms of indoctrination, if you did not notice when you read my response to Ms. Benson. I have not, however, revised anything, for the sole reason that Ms. Benson has not yet responded.

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

Dr. Bradford what evidence do you have for such a belief ? Besides what is "not OK" is far from morally inexcusable.

We observed your "inclination" towards cosmetically changing the provisions on indoctrination, but we also noticed that you continue to believe that a resolution on improving education standards is the right place to remodel the ways in which members states raise their children according to the tastes of the renowned nation of Glen Rhodes.

We in Urgench find the indoctrination of children into religious concepts distasteful but we cannot say with absolute certainty that our distaste amounts to a moral case for the banning of such practices where all the other needs of such children are being met properly.

Yours, Ryabat Goizam, Princess of Tocharistan, cultural attache to the permanent mission of Urgench to the w.a.

ambassadors,
partner,

i must say, that i am against the banning to promote nationalism in schools. every country disserves the right to promote itself. it's naive to say that a population won't know the flaws of it's nation and/or government even with nationalist indoctrination.

the nationalism part should be removed.

also, all schools and nations should be able to promote it's own military (in the case they have a military). recruitment is normal for all nations who have voluntary service. it shouldn't be banned. i would advise removing that too.

i generally agree with the changes made. however, i must ask why we have defined sex ed if it's not included in the resolution

Wachichi

unless there is a clause about sex ed, there is no need to define it or talk about it. it would save space for more necessary wording. also, removing the nationalism, and recruitment parts would also be better for the sake of the resolution.


i think this resolution is getting too detailed. with more detail it creates micromanaging to the thousands of nations. we should keep it plain and simple. the indoctrination part is not that details, so it's acceptable. however, i would advise my partner and the other ambassadors to not delve into unnecessary detail.

Wachichi

Dr. Bradford what evidence do you have for such a belief ? Besides what is "not OK" is far from morally inexcusable.
I have my own personal moral philosophy, my nation's and region's moral code, and the various proposals in both the World Assembly and the departed United Nations as "evidence of such a belief". You, Princess, befuddle me. To suggest that somehow evidence is needed of the World Assembly's goal of protecting people, especially children, is absolutely ridiculous and shameful. Nuance, Princess, is not needed nor wanted.

We observed your "inclination" towards cosmetically changing the provisions on indoctrination, but we also noticed that you continue to believe that a resolution on improving education standards is the right place to remodel the ways in which members states raise their children according to the tastes of the renowned nation of Glen Rhodes.An unsubstantiated accusation at best, Princess. Where is Ambassador Mongkha? I'm not in any mood in to deal with false accusations, especially coming from somebody I have only met once.

We in Urgench find the indoctrination of children into religious concepts distasteful but we cannot say with absolute certainty that our distaste amounts to a moral case for the banning of such practices where all the other needs of such children are being met properly.

Yours, Ryabat Goizam, Princess of Tocharistan, cultural attache to the permanent mission of Urgench to the w.a.I argue whether or not it is possible to have a proper education, when you're being told what to believe -- what to think, how to act, who to believe -- and are not given other viewpoints, or the chance to make those decisions for yourself. If Urgench thinks that it's possible, then that is fine. Let it be known, though, that neither the Chancellor, the Secretary of Education, the Senate, the Civil Assembly, the chief Ambassador, nor the citizens of Glen-Rhodes respect or intend to honor such a practice.
unless there is a clause about sex ed, there is no need to define it or talk about it. it would save space for more necessary wording. First, forgive me if I seem snarky, as I am not in a good mood.

There is a clause about sex education. Also, at 3270 characters, there is plenty of space left. So, don't be too worried, Ambassador.
III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education, affecting all government-funded, or otherwise publicly owned or operated education systems:
a) SUCH a standard shall consist of language arts, mathematics, history, science, and sex education as defined by this resolution, that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.

i think this resolution is getting too detailed. with more detail it creates micromanaging to the thousands of nations. we should keep it plain and simple. the indoctrination part is not that details, so it's acceptable. however, i would advise my partner and the other ambassadors to not delve into unnecessary detail.

WachichiHuh. Here I was, under the assumption that the past three or four revisions simplified the proposal...

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

I argue whether or not it is possible to have a proper education, when you're being told what to believe -- what to think, how to act, who to believe -- and are not given other viewpoints, or the chance to make those decisions for yourself.
The trouble is that particularly at primary level, the distinction between "education" and "indoctrination" is a very fine one. I can think of cases where it has come down to tone of voice, to be honest. Everything at primary level has to be simplified, limiting the opportunities for presenting multiple viewpoints.

Having said that, if you'd started off by establishing as a principle that education requires the opportunity for alternative viewpoints and decision making where we aren't talking about strictly factual things like spelling and times tables, then we'd have avoided a lot of unpleasantness.

I have my own personal moral philosophy, my nation's and region's moral code, and the various proposals in both the World Assembly and the departed United Nations as "evidence of such a belief". You, Princess, befuddle me. To suggest that somehow evidence is needed of the World Assembly's goal of protecting people, especially children, is absolutely ridiculous and shameful. Nuance, Princess, is not needed nor wanted.

Indeed this is where you are quite wrong Doctor, nuance and subtlety, which your delegation has shown a distinct lack of, are exactly what is needed here. You are stating things to be facts, I am merely pointing out that you cannot know them to be facts are are in fact dressing your opinion up as fact, a habit you are prone to.

An unsubstantiated accusation at best, Princess. Where is Ambassador Mongkha? I'm not in any mood in to deal with false accusations, especially coming from somebody I have only met once.

Hardly an accusation Doctor, merely an observation based on your delegation's insistence that its own narrow vision of education is sufficient for the entire membership of this organisation. You may remember my uncle the honoured Khan of Kashgar beseeching you to be reasonable, and telling you that he would find it impossible to continue to work with your delegation if it refused to broaden its understanding of education, unfortunately Mongkha went unheeded and he feels no desire to continue to be ignored and so the government of the Emperor of Urgench has charged me with representing it in this debate.

I will presume that the good Doctor's drastic failure of diplomatic sensibility is a result of professional stress, and over look his repeated insults in getting my name wrong ( unless, as I have tried to indicate in addressing him as Dr. Bradford, it is customary to revers correct name orders after titles) and presume that Dr Castro is still genuinely interested in improving his statute with the help of the other delegations of this organisation.


I argue whether or not it is possible to have a proper education, when you're being told what to believe -- what to think, how to act, who to believe -- and are not given other viewpoints, or the chance to make those decisions for yourself. If Urgench thinks that it's possible, then that is fine. Let it be known, though, that neither the Chancellor, the Secretary of Education, the Senate, the Civil Assembly, the chief Ambassador, nor the citizens of Glen-Rhodes respect or intend to honor such a practice.


Your argument is undermined by the fact that you think it should remain possible to test for certain kinds of knowledge in children which could only be implanted by an indoctrinating form of education and your repeatedly expressed doctrinaire position that science and religion should never be taught together which is an indoctrinating impulse if ever there was one. Now I am aware that your delegation has removed these two particular forms of obvious indoctrination from its resolution, but it therefore seems all the more absurd to insist that your own nation's form of indoctrination is so superior to every other method that they should all be banned in favour of that of Glen Rhodes.

Most forms of education have a tendency to indoctrinate young minds into seeing the world according to certain prescribed kinds of knowledge, this statute creates a system no more or no less indoctrinating than most. There is no specific part of this resolution which requires states to encourage free thought and free form learning which would be the most undermining approach to indoctrination of any kind, so why should this organisation take the advice of Glen Rhodes on what to indoctrinate its children into and how?



Yours, Ryabat Goizam, Princess of Tocharistan, cultural attache to the permanent mission of Urgench to the World Assembly.

The trouble is that particularly at primary level, the distinction between "education" and "indoctrination" is a very fine one. I can think of cases where it has come down to tone of voice, to be honest. Everything at primary level has to be simplified, limiting the opportunities for presenting multiple viewpoints.

Having said that, if you'd started off by establishing as a principle that education requires the opportunity for alternative viewpoints and decision making where we aren't talking about strictly factual things like spelling and times tables, then we'd have avoided a lot of unpleasantness.Is that really required? Shouldn't we all be able to know -- like you and I know -- that you cannot apply indoctrination to mathematics or alphabets? Indoctrination can only apply, according to the definition, to subjects where multiple opinions are present. Like history, for example, or art.

Indeed this is where you are quite wrong Doctor, nuance and subtlety, which your delegation has shown a distinct lack of, are exactly what is needed here. You are stating things to be facts, I am merely pointing out that you cannot know them to be facts are are in fact dressing your opinion up as fact, a habit you are prone to.So, the World Assembly isn't working towards a goal of protecting people? This is some astounding news that I'm sure other Ambassadors would like to be privy to.
Hardly an accusation Doctor, merely an observation based on your delegation's insistence that its own narrow vision of education is sufficient for the entire membership of this organisation. You may remember my uncle the honoured Khan of Kashgar beseeching you to be reasonable, and telling you that he would find it impossible to continue to work with your delegation if it refused to broaden its understanding of education, unfortunately Mongkha went unheeded and he feels no desire to continue to be ignored and so the government of the Emperor of Urgench has charged me with representing it in this debate.Then the delegating of Urgench is increasingly getting worse at observing. If I was attempting to push a single ideology on to this organization, then I never would have changed the proposal. I would not be here debating, and sometimes conceding. If I was trying to push a single ideology, religion would be banned, and testing standards would be required. Children would have to be adequate in three foreign languages, and would be required to attend a full eight years of primary education, three years of intermediary education, and five years of post-secondary education. Furthermore, if I was indeed trying to push a single ideology on to this organization, I certainly wouldn't have waited so many months to do it.

... but it therefore seems all the more absurd to insist that your own nation's form of indoctrination is so superior to every other method that they should all be banned in favour of that of Glen Rhodes.You are utterly ridiculous. Now accusing me of attempting to indoctrinate billions of children. You will not get far if you continue to do so, I should tell you. I do not respond well to the likes of that. I'm getting rather angry already, if you cannot tell.
Most forms of education have a tendency to indoctrinate young minds into seeing the world according to certain prescribed kinds of knowledge, this statute creates a system no more or no less indoctrinating than most. There is no specific part of this resolution which requires states to encourage free thought and free form learning which would be the most undermining approach to indoctrination of any kind, so why should this organisation take the advice of Glen Rhodes on what to indoctrinate its children into and how?

Yours, Ryabat Goizam, Princess of Tocharistan, cultural attache to the permanent mission of Urgench to the World Assembly.This would be an interesting argument if it (a) didn't contradict everything in the proposal, and (b) used the correct application of indoctrination, as provided by the proposal. Also, the clause banning political and religious indoctrination promotes freethought. If you're giving more than one side to a story, you get to choose which side you want to believe. That seems like freethought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought) -- the viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma.

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

Is that really required? Shouldn't we all be able to know -- like you and I know -- that you cannot apply indoctrination to mathematics or alphabets? Indoctrination can only apply, according to the definition, to subjects where multiple opinions are present. Like history, for example, or art.

Oh really so science has no possibility of competing opinion, is not subject to the whims of prevailing fashions in scientific thought, and cannot be used to prove any ideology one cares to mention?


This would be an interesting argument if it (a) didn't contradict everything in the proposal, and (b) used the correct application of indoctrination, as provided by the proposal. Also, the clause banning political and religious indoctrination promotes freethought. If you're giving more than one side to a story, you get to choose which side you want to believe. That seems like freethought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought) -- the viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma.

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


So the only possible use which the word "indoctrination" may be put to is that contained in your statute doctor? I will gloss over whether or not your resolution's is a correct definition or not since I suspect such a discussion would be unfruitful.

As to this "Freethought" philosophy you indicate, it does not imbibe of a free thinking that could be recognised by a truly free thinking person. To have thought chained to any particular method of seeing the world is not free, be that science and logic or religion and emotion. Free thinking is exactly that, free, but please do not let us get in the way of the good Doctor's insistence that his is the only possible way of viewing anything and that his interpretation of anything is manifestly the only interpretation.

Goodness I can see why Mongkha lost patience with this.


Yours

Oh really so science has no possibility of competing opinion, is not subject to the whims of prevailing fashions in scientific thought, and cannot be used to prove any ideology one cares to mention?Do not try to politicize science. This nuance has gone on for quite enough time. I do not need to statistically prove that our goal is to help people. What you're doing is a thinly veiled attempt at character assassination, through a rather childish form of filibuster.

So the only possible use which the word "indoctrination" may be put to is that contained in your statute doctor? I will gloss over whether or not your resolution's a correct definition or not since I suspect such a discussion would be unfruitful.When the very forms and meanings of indoctrination are given in the proposal, then yes, it is the only use appropriate for this debate.

... but please do not let us get in the way of the good Doctor's insistence that his is the only possible way of viewing anything and that his interpretation of anything is manifestly the only interpretation.

Goodness I can see why Mongkha lost patience with this.With this statement, it is clear that you refuse to let up on these accusations. Under the advice of my Chancellor, expect no further replies from the delegation of Glen-Rhodes to Ryabat Goizam, Princess of Tocharistan, until the delegation of Urgench rescinds its accusations.

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

Undersigned:
Gregory Eldridge-Talley,
Chancellor of Glen-Rhodes

Is that really required? Shouldn't we all be able to know -- like you and I know -- that you cannot apply indoctrination to mathematics or alphabets? Indoctrination can only apply, according to the definition, to subjects where multiple opinions are present. Like history, for example, or art.
When I said "started off", I meant "right in the very first draft of this proposal." You put forward a very good principle, but it sits staggeringly badly with where we started from.

(And yes, you can apply indoctrination to very early reading very effectively indeed: "See John. See John play cricket. See John hit Janet with the bat. Good boy, John!" But that's beside the point.)

Do not try to politicize science. This nuance has gone on for quite enough time. I do not need to statistically prove that our goal is to help people. What you're doing is a thinly veiled attempt at character assassination, through a rather childish form of filibuster.

When the very forms and meanings of indoctrination are given in the proposal, then yes, it is the only use appropriate for this debate.

With this statement, it is clear that you refuse to let up on these accusations. Under the advice of my Chancellor, expect no further replies from the delegation of Glen-Rhodes to Ryabat Goizam, Princess of Tocharistan, until the delegation of Urgench rescinds its accusations.

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

Undersigned:
Gregory Eldridge-Talley,
Chancellor of Glen-Rhodes




Mongkha shuffles into the room trailed by his tired looking assistant Tarmashirin. The elderly Khan sits down next to Princess Ryabat

It seems the honoured Ambassador does not care for the criticism of her Royal Highness Ryabat of Tocharistan. Very well so be it.

The Government of the Empire has no intention of apologising for anything whatsoever so his excellency the esteemed Ambassador Dr.Castro should inform his government to put that notion forever out of its head.

We will say that nothing our delegation has attempted to do here was intended as "filibuster" or anything of the kind, but if the honoured Ambassador has seen a change in our attitude towards his project and the manner in which he conducts this drafting it is because he appears to be increasingly unable to see anything from an alternative view point.


We have not asked your delegation to provide statistical proof of anything and your confusion on this point is baffling. And nobody is "character assassinating" anyone, our intent has been to hold up a mirror to the respected Ambassador's approach and to the views he espouses, which from certain points of view appear to be of the same character as some of those who's views he seems to hold in very low esteem indeed.


We have not politicised science, but many governments and philosophies have done, with the support and encouragement of some scientists. More importantly science has its own fashions and movements which rise and fall, it has is own orthodoxies and heresies too, we are making the point that all forms of knowledge are open to abuse or misuse and that all forms of knowledge are inherently frail. But in fact by using the same methods positive outcomes may be achieved and this is what is called good education in some states.

If instilling certain kinds of knowledge leads to certain ways of thinking, then this can be used to warp and narrow the human mind or it can be used to open and free the human mind, most call the former "indoctrination" the latter is usually called "education" they are the same thing with different outcomes.

Therefore it is possible for any form of education to be both educational and indoctrinating to a greater or lesser degree simultaneously. Banning indoctrination is fine by us but it will mean that teaching children to understand the world according to certain kinds of knowledge and using certain specific methods, in large scale mass settings will become illegal under our law and under many laws of states within this organisation and we would maintain that all states should see this clause in this way.


Yours e.t.c,

We will say that nothing our delegation has attempted to do here was intended as "filibuster" or anything of the kind, but if the honoured Ambassador has seen a change in our attitude towards his project and the manner in which he conducts this drafting it is because he appears to be increasingly unable to see anything from an alternative view point.The emphasis is where the accusation in question lies. To accuse the delegation of the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes to be narrow-minded and unilateral is an insult to the work of the entire diplomatic department of the commonwealth. The Ambassador to the World Assembly is the chief diplomatic official of our nation, and is the best example of diplomacy that Glen-Rhodes has to offer.

To declare such an accusation as true is to overlook all the concessions given throughout this debate. It shows that the delegation of Urgench is interested only in what it can use towards its own benefit. The complete removal of the infamous science-religion dichotomous clause is the most clear example of a multilateral effort to improve the quality of education of billions of students; a concession that was not so easily given, as one can see by reading the large portions of the debate on the subject. The inclusion of sex education and the increased leniency in financial aid are further examples of multilateral legislating.

Perhaps the delegation of Urgench should hold its mirror up to its own face, and see where it errs.

Gregory Eldridge-Talley,
Chancellor of Glen-Rhodes
When I said "started off", I meant "right in the very first draft of this proposal." You put forward a very good principle, but it sits staggeringly badly with where we started from.I see. I had thought that you meant in the preamble or in the article III. You are right, though. It would have helped.

If instilling certain kinds of knowledge leads to certain ways of thinking, then this can be used to warp and narrow the human mind or it can be used to open and free the human mind, most call the former "indoctrination" the latter is usually called "education" they are the same thing with different outcomes.This is where you are utterly wrong. It is hard to debate with you, Ambassador, when you are working with the wrong idea of what indoctrination is. Education is the imparting of knowledge, whereas indoctrination is the forced infusion of opinions parading as truths by regimes, that support the views of said regimes.

Your insistence on suggesting otherwise is what is truly baffling, Ambassador.

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

The emphasis is where the accusation in question lies. To accuse the delegation of the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes to be narrow-minded and unilateral is an insult to the work of the entire diplomatic department of the commonwealth. The Ambassador to the World Assembly is the chief diplomatic official of our nation, and is the best example of diplomacy that Glen-Rhodes has to offer.

To declare such an accusation as true is to overlook all the concessions given throughout this debate. It shows that the delegation of Urgench is interested only in what it can use towards its own benefit. The complete removal of the infamous science-religion dichotomous clause is the most clear example of a multilateral effort to improve the quality of education of billions of students; a concession that was not so easily given, as one can see by reading the large portions of the debate on the subject. The inclusion of sex education and the increased leniency in financial aid are further examples of multilateral legislating.

Perhaps the delegation of Urgench should hold its mirror up to its own face, and see where it errs.

Gregory Eldridge-Talley,
Chancellor of Glen-Rhodes

This is where you are utterly wrong. It is hard to debate with you, Ambassador, when you are working with the wrong idea of what indoctrination is. Education is the imparting of knowledge, whereas indoctrination is the forced infusion of opinions parading as truths by regimes, that support the views of said regimes.

Your insistence on suggesting otherwise is what is truly baffling, Ambassador.

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





Very well, we have pointed out that this habit of defining what the parameters of debate are, what the definition of terms should be and how all things are to be interpreted is something which seems to be recent and increasing, and we accept that the honoured Ambassador has shown the ability to adapt his position in the past, but this makes this new intransigence all the more frustrating.

Have things your way, we want nothing more to do with this business. We are tired of being ignored and being told we are ignorant. Our delegation will not be involving itself in this endeavour any more.


We will be voting no to this resolution if it is put forward to vote in this form.


Yours sincerely,

Very well, we have pointed out that this habit of defining what the parameters of debate are, what the definition of terms should be and how all things are to be interpreted is something which seems to be recent and increasing, and we accept that the honoured Ambassador has shown the ability to adapt his position in the past, but this makes this new intransigence all the more frustrating.I'd like to quote Ms. Benson here:
In that case, I would like to propose the learning of 'stuff' be made mandatory. Optional, but encouraged, should be the learning of 'things'. I will lay down and die before I see this proposal exclude 'how stuff works, you know'.
Have things your way, we want nothing more to do with this business. We are tired of being ignored and being told we are ignorant. Our delegation will not be involving itself in this endeavour any more.I am not excluding you, Ambassador, from the debate. With the advice of my Chancellor, who felt that the insults to our diplomatic department had gone on long enough, I excluded the Princess of Tocharistan from the debate.

Considering that the bulk of several past responses have been accusations of unilateralism and narrow-mindedness, it's reasonable to understand how the delegation of Urgench feels ignored by the delegation of Glen-Rhodes. However, it should be noted that the only reason for this is that the delegation of Glen-Rhodes refuses to extend appropriate amounts of diplomacy to delegations that do not return those same amounts.

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

ambassadors,

is this a debate? in my nation, debates aren't fueled by accusations from any sides. It seems that both sides need to grow up and show themselves to be the true diplomats that they are.

there has been a fair amount of accusations, and NO ONE is excluded from this debate. we need all the nations we can to join in order to advance this proposal. My partner, with all due respect, has no right to ban anyone or exclude anyone from the debate, even if that person is annoying the ambassador to any extent.

everything Ms. Benson, and the ambassador of Urgench, are completely resonable. the difference between education and indoctrination is important seeing it is mentioned so many times, and all details that are being debated should not be thrown aside unless there is compromise. i have been in many forums but have never seen such ludicrous behavior.

all ambassadors, must "bend" their positions a bit in order to reach a consensus. we must meet midway in order to reach an agreement.

i don't think, however, that it's important to describe the difference between education and indoctrination in the resolution. those parts are there simply to try and fight any possible indoctrination in any countries in order to have children grow up with a more even-minded view of the world.

Wachichi

there has been a fair amount of accusations, and NO ONE is excluded from this debate. we need all the nations we can to join in order to advance this proposal. My partner, with all due respect, has no right to ban anyone or exclude anyone from the debate, even if that person is annoying the ambassador to any extent. My delegation certainly does have the right to exclude any delegation we see fit from debating with us. It has never been something that this delegation has done, but the Princess of Tocharistan has an obvious agenda. Under no circumstances will the delegation of Glen-Rhodes stand aside while it's very character is being tarnished by outlandish accusations.

the difference between education and indoctrination is important seeing it is mentioned so many times, and all details that are being debated should not be thrown aside unless there is compromise. i have been in many forums but have never seen such ludicrous behavior. It is only the delegation of Urgench that seems to not understand the difference between education and indoctrination. I was rather surprised myself to see that the two were being called one in the same. We have corrected the error, and hope that no other delegations make the same mistake.

all ambassadors, must "bend" their positions a bit in order to reach a consensus. we must meet midway in order to reach an agreement.Of course. This is the foundation of diplomacy. There's a saying in Glen-Rhodes that the Department of Diplomacy was originally called the Department of Concessions. Thankfully, under my lead, this colloquialism has changed. But, the essence still stands that all sides must concede to some things. However, that is much easier said than done.

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

ambassador,

you have the right to ignore and not engage in debate with anyone or whomever you choose, however, you can not ban anyone. first, it would be unwise, maybe that nation's agenda is for the better? who are you to judge?

also, even if you wanted to ban someone, it would be physically impossible seeing that these are open debates. we would want all minds working on this resolution, bias or not. all are welcome. we are getting off topic, back to the resolution.

The delegation of Urgench only says so because their are many nations where education includes seeing the world around them in a certain light. teaching someone something or a view of the world is still education. however, i do believe we should try to differentiate the two in order to better the resolution.

Wachichi.

you have the right to ignore and not engage in debate with anyone or whomever you choose, however, you can not ban anyone.
Wachichi.Emphasis is exactly the intention of "banning" somebody from debating with the delegation of Glen-Rhodes. Ambassador Mongkha is free to debate to his heart's extent. It is not with him that the Chancellor of Glen-Rhodes has a problem, it is with the Princess of Tocharistan, who repeatedly and blatantly accused myself and my delegation of being narrow-minded bigots. It is of his own accord that he has decided to no longer participate.

However, you are correct that we have gotten off-track. I am still waiting, though, for Ms. Benson to reply.

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

ambassador,

you must also consider it from the Princess's point of view. maybe, in the heat of the debate you may have offended her (intentionally or otherwise). you must realize that typing things in, can give off an un-intended understanding of it. also, maybe the ambassador, was right? i'm not by any means calling you stubborn, or a 'bigot', however, i have seen quite a few arguments between you and others, with both sides not giving in to compromise. such stubborness on both sides would have lead to the rising anger in between you ambassador, and the Princess. it does however, show a good side of the Princess.

she still obviously cares about the issue and the resolution, otherwise she wold have completely receded her nation and all it's diplomats from the debate. it's a sign, she might be willing to come back.

Wachichi

also, maybe the ambassador, was right?Given the ample evidence I've supplied, the Princess was not right. I do not wish to go any further with this. The reprimands given were reasonable, and are revocable upon the rescinding of the accusations by the delegation of Urgench.

The delegation of Urgench has been valuable in the debate process. However, no matter how valuable it has been, it must realize that one person speaks for the entire delegation. If that person doesn't do a very good job of representing their delegation, then it is the entire group that gets punished for it. It's one reason why I am the only person that speaks to the World Assembly, from my nation.

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

It is only the delegation of Urgench that seems to not understand the difference between education and indoctrination. I was rather surprised myself to see that the two were being called one in the same. We have corrected the error, and hope that no other delegations make the same mistake.

I wouldn't say that. I've been quietly observing since your personal tone has been condescending through this entire debate, however Rutianas also sees education and indoctrination as being the same.

Paula pulled out a dictionary and opened it, having marked the page she wanted already.

According to our own dictionary, the definition of Indoctrination includes the phrase 'to teach' and 'to imbue with learning'.

After closing the dictionary and leaving it on the table, Paula looked directly at the delegation from Glen-Rhodes.

Now, you tell me. If the definition of the word includes those two phrases, how are they not the same?

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

since the ambassador has brought it up,

in order to differentiate between the two, it would be important to define both education and indoctrination in order to tell the difference. my original education proposal (which is merged with this one) had the definition. i would advise using the same since it is broad enough to include as many nations as possible.

however we will need a definition of indoctrination.

Wachichi

[snip]... however Rutianas also sees education and indoctrination as being the same.

Having thought about it a bit, I'm going to modify my previous stance on this slightly. There is a difference between 'education' and 'indoctrination' as we use the words simply because we attach connotations of intent to 'indoctrination'. That's a very subjective distinction, though, and hence a very bad thing to code into international law. Phrasing things in terms of avoiding (apparent) bias of opinions would be safer.

I wouldn't say that. I've been quietly observing since your personal tone has been condescending through this entire debate, however Rutianas also sees education and indoctrination as being the same.

Paula pulled out a dictionary and opened it, having marked the page she wanted already.

According to our own dictionary, the definition of Indoctrination includes the phrase 'to teach' and 'to imbue with learning'.

After closing the dictionary and leaving it on the table, Paula looked directly at the delegation from Glen-Rhodes.

Now, you tell me. If the definition of the word includes those two phrases, how are they not the same?

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador
They are not the same because, Ambassador Jenner, "to teach; to imbue with learning" is not the complete definition of indoctrination. "To instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view" is, in all aspects, a more accepted and used definition of indoctrination. The only aspect shared is that the students are taught something.

I present to you a guideline found in my grandson's handbook for his history class. It clearly shows the differences between education and indoctrination.
http://iamcosmouse.com/Textbook Exerpt.png

Having thought about it a bit, I'm going to modify my previous stance on this slightly. There is a difference between 'education' and 'indoctrination' as we use the words simply because we attach connotations of intent to 'indoctrination'. That's a very subjective distinction, though, and hence a very bad thing to code into international law. Phrasing things in terms of avoiding (apparent) bias of opinions would be safer.With all due respect, I disagree that the meanings of the words come from the connotations attached to them. The meaning of indoctrination is made especially obvious by the adjectives "political" and "religious". However, since it is obvious that every detail is being stressed in this debate, I'll go ahead and include the intended (common) definition of indoctrination.

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

They are not the same because, Ambassador Jenner, "to teach; to imbue with learning" is not the complete definition of indoctrination. "To instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view" is, in all aspects, a more accepted and used definition of indoctrination. The only aspect shared is that the students are taught something.

In your country, perhaps. Not in mine. Again, indoctrination is something that truly cannot be avoided in early education. Otherwise, you'd not even be able to teach a child right from wrong. It's indoctrination. How can you even teach them that rape, murder, theft, and so on is bad. That is an ideology, principle, doctrine, etc.

I present to you a guideline found in my grandson's handbook for his history class. It clearly shows the differences between education and indoctrination.

This is not on an international level so I am not even interested in seeing something from your nation's history classes. It is not our beliefs on the matter.

With all due respect, I disagree that the meanings of the words come from the connotations attached to them. The meaning of indoctrination is made especially obvious by the adjectives "political" and "religious". However, since it is obvious that every detail is being stressed in this debate, I'll go ahead and include the intended (common) definition of indoctrination.

Considering that many different politicians have different views on what is moral and what is not, you're again stopping the young from being educated on what is moral from a political standpoint. Also, if a nation has their young take politics, as we do, this little clause will be stopping that nation from offering a government specific class. For example, our children are taking political classes from the time they are five years old. Yes, these classes would be considered 'biased' from your perspective. Not from ours. Our history classes teach about other forms of government and the pros and cons of such systems so they are getting an unbiased perspective from those classes. However, the way our government is currently set up, to introduce this particular ideology would be to destroy our very core of government. We are working to solve this problem internally.

Banning political and religious indoctrination is a very bad idea. Urging countries to ban it would be much better as it would provide the key for some countries whose government wants to change, but currently cannot for whatever reason.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

In your country, perhaps. Not in mine. Again, indoctrination is something that truly cannot be avoided in early education. Otherwise, you'd not even be able to teach a child right from wrong. It's indoctrination. How can you even teach them that rape, murder, theft, and so on is bad. That is an ideology, principle, doctrine, etc. No, no, no. Definitions of words are universal. They do not change nation by nation. To suggest so, and argue so, is a clever tactic in creating an argument that is neither winnable nor useful. I'm growing extremely annoyed that the question of whether or not "political and religious indoctrination" actually means "political and religious indoctrination" is still being debated. There is only one meaning, Ambassador. Teaching is part of that meaning, but to say it's the entire meaning is manipulatively misleading.

... if a nation has their young take politics, as we do, this little clause will be stopping that nation from offering a government specific class. For example, our children are taking political classes from the time they are five years old. Yes, these classes would be considered 'biased' from your perspective. ...I would really like to reply to this, but I have the feeling that it will fall upon deaf ears, and a mind that cannot begin to fathom that indoctrination and education are too massively different things.

Banning political and religious indoctrination is a very bad idea. Urging countries to ban it would be much better as it would provide the key for some countries whose government wants to change, but currently cannot for whatever reason.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas AmbassadorUrging does nothing. Urging my grandson to not eat cookies before dinner does not mean that he will not eat cookies before dinner.

ACKNOWLEDGING that many member nations lack an organized educational system, either by choice or otherwise,

REALIZING that education promotes economic and social growth,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE 'education' as the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the abilities of reasoning and judgment, and to generally prepare oneself or others for mature life.
DEFINE ‘child’, for the sole purpose of this Act, 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 Act.
DEFINE ‘primary education’ has the series of educational courses a child must attend, until they no longer meet the requirements of a child.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by any means deemed appropriate.

III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education, affecting all government-funded, or otherwise publicly owned or operated education systems:
a) SUCH a standard shall consist of language arts, mathematics, history, science, and sex education as defined by this Act, that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) DEFINING the following courses:
i) language arts as listening, reading, writing, and speaking in a given language
ii) mathematics as learning and applying basic arithmetic and geometric operations
iii) history as learning of records and narrative descriptions of significant past events and people, in respect to the WA member nation
iv) science as the effort to discover, and increase understanding of how the natural world works, through observation and experimentation
v) sex education as learning of sexual anatomy, sexual reproduction, and sexual maturation, and the consequences thereof.
c) PROHIBIT political and religious indoctrination of students and educators alike, defining indoctrination as: the instruction in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to uncritically imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
d) PROTECT the right of nations to enculture students in ways not considered to be politically or religiously indoctrinating.
e) ENCOURAGE and PROTECT a nation's choice to go beyond the standards set in this Act.

IV) MANDATE that all WA member nations make education, as defined under this Act, readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of high-level brain activity.

V) MANDATE that financial aid for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, given that the nation falls under one or more qualifications listed below:
a) the nation is unable to fiscally meet the requirements of this Act, after instituting every possible fund-raising operation, within the means of maintaining economic stability, or
b) the nation has no existing educational system or infrastructure.

VI) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid, based on the legitimacy of the requests.

Now, there were questions raised earlier about the following definitions. Would Ambassador with these question like to address how to improve the definitions?
DEFINE ‘child’, for the sole purpose of this Act, 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 Act.

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

i spoke of defining education and indoctrination, something you have already done, and i am satisfied.

ambassador, i must say, that to some nations, they teach a bias because in their view it is right while to others, wrong. your opponents argue that you are in no position to say what's right and wrong, because each person sees it differently. therefore teaching people right from wrong would be bias, towards the right (or in evil nations) -toward the wrong-.

i must bring up the sex education once more. i don't really care if a nation teachers sex to children who have barely reached puberty or not, however, i think it would make this resolution much more attractive to nations, and less questions and confusion, if we changed the sex ed part, into a health education. it would therefore allow nations to teach health classes, (classes teaching students how to be healthy) and/or sex ed if that nation prefers to teach it's young children about sex..etc. or it allows the nation to teach both, sex ed, and health of the body and mind.

it would simplify the entire part for the better if we just made those small changes:

"a) SUCH a standard shall consist of language arts, mathematics, history, science, and health education as defined by this Act, that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development."

it wouldn't be necessary to define health education since it allows any nation to teach sex ed, body and/or mind health, or all of them together to their younglings.

that would mean removing the sex ed definition:

"v) sex education as learning of sexual anatomy, sexual reproduction, and sexual maturation, and the consequences thereof."

i would urge my partner in this proposal to make the suggested changes.
thank you.

Wachichi

ambassador, i must say, that to some nations, they teach a bias because in their view it is right while to others, wrong. your opponents argue that you are in no position to say what's right and wrong, because each person sees it differently. therefore teaching people right from wrong would be bias, towards the right (or in evil nations) -toward the wrong-. I know this all very well. There is no excuse to brainwash children; no reason good enough for the World Assembly to support such a practice. I am a proponent of the protection of children, and such protection extends to their right of judgment. Nations may go on with their totalitarian practices outside of the classroom, as the World Assembly cannot ban them from being totalitarian states. But, the classroom is a place of education, not of "might makes right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right)" political indoctrination.

i must bring up the sex education once more. i don't really care if a nation teachers sex to children who have barely reached puberty or not, however, i think it would make this resolution much more attractive to nations, and less questions and confusion, if we changed the sex ed part, into a health education. ...
i would urge my partner in this proposal to make the suggested changes.
thank you.

WachichiThis is a fine suggestion.

ACKNOWLEDGING that many member nations lack an organized educational system, either by choice or otherwise,

REALIZING that education promotes economic and social growth,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE 'education' as the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the abilities of reasoning and judgment, and to generally prepare oneself or others for mature life.
DEFINE ‘child’, for the sole purpose of this Act, 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 Act.
DEFINE ‘primary education’ has the series of educational courses a child must attend, until they no longer meet the requirements of a child.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by any means deemed appropriate.

III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education, affecting all government-funded, or otherwise publicly owned or operated education systems:
a) SUCH a standard shall consist of language arts, mathematics, history, science, and health education as defined by this Act, that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) DEFINING the following courses:
i) language arts as listening, reading, writing, and speaking in a given language
ii) mathematics as learning and applying basic arithmetic and geometric operations
iii) history as learning of records and narrative descriptions of significant past events and people, in respect to the WA member nation
iv) science as the effort to discover, and increase understanding of how the natural world works, through observation and experimentation
c) PROHIBIT political and religious indoctrination of students and educators alike, defining indoctrination as: the instruction in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to uncritically imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
d) PROTECT the right of nations to enculture students in ways not considered to be politically or religiously indoctrinating.
e) ENCOURAGE and PROTECT a nation's choice to go beyond the standards set in this Act.

IV) MANDATE that all WA member nations make education, as defined under this Act, readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of high-level brain activity.

V) MANDATE that financial aid for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, given that the nation falls under one or more qualifications listed below:
a) the nation is unable to fiscally meet the requirements of this Act, after instituting every possible fund-raising operation, within the means of maintaining economic stability, or
b) the nation has no existing educational system or infrastructure.

VI) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid, based on the legitimacy of the requests.

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

With all due respect, I disagree that the meanings of the words come from the connotations attached to them. The meaning of indoctrination is made especially obvious by the adjectives "political" and "religious".
That would be mistaking the part for the whole yet again, Ambassador. I'm glad you've decided not to do that.

However, since it is obvious that every detail is being stressed in this debate, I'll go ahead and include the intended (common) definition of indoctrination.
Sigh. Please read your definition carefully and tell me how it permits the teaching of politics or religion at all. Bear in mind that everything from "especially" onwards has the force of example, not qualifier.

Sigh. Please read your definition carefully and tell me how it permits the teaching of politics or religion at all. Bear in mind that everything from "especially" onwards has the force of example, not qualifier.What lead you to think that "especially to uncritically imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view" isn't a qualifier? Perhaps the word "especially"? Don't take this as critically hostile, but it would certainly help if you would explain what you mean when you respond with a critique.

However, the definition given certainly does permit the teaching of religion and politics. I'm wondering if you have the same misunderstanding as the Ambassador of Rutianas does; mixing up education and indoctrination. The difference between educating about politics and indoctrinating politics is that, when indoctrinating, you are not giving any chance for the students to be critical of what you're teaching.

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

O.O.C. it is impossible to teach pedagogically without a "view", since it would be impossible to test whether knowledge has been imparted the transmission of this view is the yardstick buy which the efficacy of the education in such a system is measured.

This view is a clear form of indoctrination, especially in history, religion, politics e.t.c. ,

Even being taught to think critically could be seen as a form of indoctrination if being able to think uncritically is not allowed.

Simple question, in all of the wording at the end of the day a primary school can teach Science and Religion so long as the two are not taught together?

On the issue of the WA paying teacher's salaries, while it would be nice, I think it crosses the relationship boundary of nations and the WA. The nation of Oiseaui would love to have money freely spread to our coffers but then what's next? The WA paying salaries of our Government officials? How about our civil building Janitors? Ooh! Ooh! How about paying for our State trained athletes entertainment! Of course I'm being facetious but point still remains it opens the door to a slippery slope and seems a bit more than necessary. Only reason I could ever see the WA giving money to pay for teacher's salaries would be in the case of extremely impoverished nations where they couldn't pay the minimum salary themselves.

Otherwise, this resolution bothers me a bit simply because I'm not to fond of the WA getting too involved with my national government policies but as long as this is simply putting in place standards of acceptability I can support it.

Simple after thought directed to Glen-Rhodes... you're much more likely to get people to support you when even IF they disagree with you, you still treat them with respect. Insulting WA Assembly members who are quite active, or acting superior to anyone doesn't win many supporters.

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/39/oiseauisignatureng9.png

c) PROHIBIT political and religious indoctrination of students and educators alike, defining indoctrination as: the instruction in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to uncritically imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
Why would you deny theocracies the right to indoctrinate students with their particular religious creed? Does this not violate the WA rule against ideological bans?

O.O.C. it is impossible to teach pedagogically without a "view", since it would be impossible to test whether knowledge has been imparted the transmission of this view is the yardstick buy which the efficacy of the education in such a system is measured.

This view is a clear form of indoctrination, especially in history, religion, politics e.t.c. ,

Even being taught to think critically could be seen as a form of indoctrination if being able to think uncritically is not allowed.
OOC: That's not the case at all. I don't know how they do it in other countries, but in the United States, you are not taught just one side of anything. In my history class, I learned about the Crusades from both the Christian and Muslim points of view. If I had been told only the Christian point of view, and told that the Muslims were wrong and the Christians were right, this would constitute indoctrination.

However, both sides were presented, and the history teacher did not imbue a bias on his students. Therefore, no indoctrination had taken place.

Also, I was still tested on it, and the teacher still taught.

I really don't understand how this is confusing at all. There's a clear difference between indoctrination and education. A quite clear, quite defined difference. A simple google of "education vs. indoctrination" provides resource upon resource to learn about the differences and when something is indoctrinating, as opposed to educational.

c) PROHIBIT political and religious indoctrination of students and educators alike, defining indoctrination as: the instruction in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to uncritically imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view. Why would you deny theocracies the right to indoctrinate students with their particular religious creed? Does this not violate the WA rule against ideological bans?

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise to expound upon the esteemed representative from Aundotutunagir's question. This proposed resolution would impose an impossible situation upon the people of the Eternal Kawaii. Schools in our nation, like all other public institutions, are inextricably part of the Diaspora Church. Article II of the proposal would mandate that the Church provide public education for our nation's youth, a laudable goal. However, Article III Section (C) would prohibit the Church from doing so.

This proposed resolution would impose a logical paradox, wherein we are both compelled and forbidden to comply with it.

OOC: That's not the case at all. I don't know how they do it in other countries, but in the United States, you are not taught just one side of anything. In my history class, I learned about the Crusades from both the Christian and Muslim points of view. If I had been told only the Christian point of view, and told that the Muslims were wrong and the Christians were right, this would constitute indoctrination.

However, both sides were presented, and the history teacher did not imbue a bias on his students. Therefore, no indoctrination had taken place.

Also, I was still tested on it, and the teacher still taught.

I really don't understand how this is confusing at all. There's a clear difference between indoctrination and education. A quite clear, quite defined difference. A simple google of "education vs. indoctrination" provides resource upon resource to learn about the differences and when something is indoctrinating, as opposed to educational.

OOC: Out of curousity, did you, by chance, attend private education? Also from the US, we were, indeed, indoctrinated in many areas of education, including politics. Of course, attending a public school, religious indoctrination wasn't an issue.

The point is that it is impossible to separate the two. It doesn't matter in what area of education you're looking at. It's going to happen. Intentionally or unintentionally.

Being from America, I'm sure you were taught about the third world countries and how their economy and political system is unstable. Or how communism is considered bad. The schools that I attended sure gave that impression.

And before you say I must have attended horrible schools, let me assure you that I attended some very good schools.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise to expound upon the esteemed representative from Aundotutunagir's question. This proposed resolution would impose an impossible situation upon the people of the Eternal Kawaii. Schools in our nation, like all other public institutions, are inextricably part of the Diaspora Church. Article II of the proposal would mandate that the Church provide public education for our nation's youth, a laudable goal. However, Article III Section (C) would prohibit the Church from doing so.

This proposed resolution would impose a logical paradox, wherein we are both compelled and forbidden to comply with it.

I am pleased that the Esteemed Ambassador from The Eternal Kawaii has responded in this debate. This is precisely what I have been attempting to point out to the delegation from Glen-Rhodes. However, the Ambassador seems to have deaf ears where someone else's viewpoint contradicts his own. I pray you have more luck where others have failed.

To the delegation from Glen-Rhodes, I have been instructed to refrain from further debate with you. It is clear to us that you are incapable of understanding others viewpoints or even attempting to understand the differences in nations through the WA. I have also been instructed to vote against this resolution should it appear with the banning of political or religious indoctrination. We are saddened that this topic cannot be compromised on due to the blindness of the delegations writing it.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

OOC: That's not the case at all. I don't know how they do it in other countries, but in the United States, you are not taught just one side of anything. In my history class, I learned about the Crusades from both the Christian and Muslim points of view. If I had been told only the Christian point of view, and told that the Muslims were wrong and the Christians were right, this would constitute indoctrination.

However, both sides were presented, and the history teacher did not imbue a bias on his students. Therefore, no indoctrination had taken place.

Also, I was still tested on it, and the teacher still taught.

I really don't understand how this is confusing at all. There's a clear difference between indoctrination and education. A quite clear, quite defined difference. A simple google of "education vs. indoctrination" provides resource upon resource to learn about the differences and when something is indoctrinating, as opposed to educational.



O.O.C. I'm not talking about teaching rights or wrongs so much, but for instance one is taught that the two main immediate causes of WW2 were WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles, that the causes of WW1 included German unification and the Franco-Prussian war.

All of this is victor's history and is possibly true nonetheless, but in order for this syllabus to be taught a "view" has been imparted and completely alternative versions of history are possible. Good schooling does allow for certain degree re-interpretation, but this is usually with regard to a view and with reference to certain common points of agreement.

If for instance a pupil were to write an essay which stated that a continuous war had been fought by the Eurasian powers for the entirety of the period, they might have some justification as they see it but they would have to be using a different set of ideas and reference points in the timeline. Pedagogical teaching would not be able to say whether or not it had properly imparted the salient historical facts it had intended to impart and would therefore not be able to tell if it had had any efficacy.

The fact that you were taught about the crusades at all in school is part of a "view" that it is useful to know about the crusades, why weren't you taught about the Moors in al'Andaluz for instance or the Hungarian ascendancy under Mathew Corvinus, or perhaps the Heresy of the Vaud and the Waldensians?

Even deciding what is taught is part of a view of what is useful information, this information is considered useful because it is believed it will help you understand your world better, but it will teach you to understand your world in ways which your elders already think is the right way to understand it, this is indoctrination.

Unless you advocate free-form learning where each individual decides for themselves what information they wish to study and how they will interpret it and how useful they think it will be for their own life then you are advocating indoctrination.

What is taught is as indoctrinating as how it is taught, mandating science, mathematics, languages e.t.c. will engender a certain type of world view just as surely as catechising and brainwashing. I suspect you know that and are just intent on your own form of indoctrination.

Oh and please don't patronise me, I do know what I'm talking about and the fact that you think your right beyond reproach is a worryingly Ill educated seeming mind-set for someone trying to claim an interest in education.

Oh and googling things is not a foolproof way of deciding the veracity of anything, indeed the Internet is the perfect example of a learning resource which allows you to learn whatever you want, how ever you want, to prove any theory you want to espouse

OOC:
Edit: It's safe to say that I've given up trying to convince Urgench and Rutianas that they have the wrong definition. I'm just going to add this to my "Yet another proposal killed by ridiculous arguments of little importance" column. Maybe one day; just maybe. It could keep going if we could agree to use the common definition of indoctrination, and not some obscure argument that education is indoctrination.

O.O.C. you sound indoctrinated to me, if I'm a hundred percent honest. The fact that you make value judgements about the relative values of historical events and phenomena as though history could possibly really be judged in this way suggests a strong bias towards the things you were educated about.

This business of the U.S. system being based on non-indoctrination is a myth, and you seem to imagine that being taught to think critically is somehow not being indoctrinated, if you are taught to think in anyway critically or otherwise you have been indoctrinated, perhaps with positive outcomes but none the less...

I can't believe that you don't see the obvious logic of this concept.

Your "common sense" is the epitome of received thought defined by folk idiom, your definition of indoctrination seems to be anyway of thinking which seems alien to your own, that is very worrying indeed.

I suspect your indoctrination is so complete that you will perhaps never see beyond it so this is definitely my last contribution I.C. or O.O.C. so good luck and bon chance.


Edit- don't be so pettish you've done good work so far and this resolution shouldn't be shelved because of one ill worded clause, just remove the clause and get on with things.

Minor thing: 'enculture' is the incorrect word. It applies, I think, only to biological cultures ('Professor Suzie encultures the bacteria'). The word you're looking for is 'enculturate'.

Slightly more major thing: maybe you could skip all the wrangling over the definition of indoctrination by omitting it, and replacing it with a requirement that students be taught to consider problems critically. It would, of course, be more open to evasion and abuse, but this proposal is not about eliminating indoctrination in general so I doubt it's a problem. Once again, I feel returning to a concentration the core issue of education funding would be beneficial.

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

OOC: I'm not going to get into the protracted OOC debate about the US education system, but Glen-Rhodes, you might find James Loewen's book Lies My Teacher Told Me an interesting read on the nature of pedagogical practice in the teaching of history in the US. After all, it is a little difficult to take at face value: 'Escaping indoctrination is the very foundation of the United States of America. Being able to think for yourself is the most fundamental right that people hold in the United States.' when coupled with 'I was not indoctrinated.' :P

Minor thing: 'enculture' is the incorrect word. It applies, I think, only to biological cultures ('Professor Suzie encultures the bacteria'). The word you're looking for is 'enculturate'.

Slightly more major thing: maybe you could skip all the wrangling over the definition of indoctrination by omitting it, and replacing it with a requirement that students be taught to consider problems critically. It would, of course, be more open to evasion and abuse, but this proposal is not about eliminating indoctrination in general so I doubt it's a problem. Once again, I feel returning to a concentration the core issue of education funding would be beneficial.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of WysteriaAbout 'enculture', I believe you are correct, after further dictionary-diving.

I'm not sure that I can omit the clause, to be quite honest. I know that I can, and that it would certainly stop one debate. But, the arguement goes much more deeper than this resolution. There is a problem with certain delegations -- not limited to Urgench and Rutianas -- that, I believe, is no fault of their own, but of the process in which the assembly operates (a process that I am not too naive to hope that will change, or should change). There should have been no argument over indoctrination vs. education. It was spelled out quite clearly what it was. Maybe, though, it simply is just this proposal. It's been debated about for longer than most modern proposals, and most of the debates have been about the meanings of what it said. It seems the adage "the law means what the law says" no longer applies. I cannot simply say "political and religious indoctrination in the forms of propaganda, brainwashing, etc. are banned" and have it actually mean "political and religious indoctrination in the forms of propaganda, brainwashing, etc. are banned". Similarly, I doubt that I can say that "children must be taught to consider problems critically" without some kind of argument about what it means to "consider problems critically"; there has already been an argument about what "freethinking" actually means, as if the word doesn't already provide its own definition.

I've sent you a letter, and if you wish that we continue on with this proposal, then I'll be prepared to work on it. However, I'm not entirely encouraged at this point.

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

CONCLUDING that education promotes economic and social growth,

ADHERING to the idea of the right to knowledge,

POSITING that the World Assembly has the responsibility to define and protect a child's right to education,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE 'education' as the act or process of imparting or acquiring knowledge, developing the cognitive abilities of reasoning and judgment, and preparing oneself or others for mature life.
DEFINE ‘child’, for the sole purpose of this Act, as a citizen between 1/3 and 2/3 the age of consent of the member nation they belong to.
DEFINE ‘primary education’ has the series of educational courses a child must attend, until they no longer meet the requirements of a child.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by any means deemed appropriate.

III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education, affecting all government-funded, or otherwise publicly owned or operated education systems:
a) SUCH a standard shall consist of language arts, mathematics, history, science, and health education as defined by this Act, that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) DEFINING the following courses:
i) language arts as listening, reading, writing, and speaking in a given language
ii) mathematics as learning and applying basic arithmetic and geometric operations
iii) history as learning of records and narrative descriptions of significant past events and people, in respect to the WA member nation
iv) science as the effort to discover, and increase understanding of how the natural world works, through observation and experimentation
c) DEFINE and PROTECT the right of independent thought of all individuals: to critically examine, analyze, and otherwise thoroughly investigate all problems, solutions, ideologies, doctrines, subjects, and other ideas, in the pursuit of attaining a conclusion independent of any other conclusion.
d) PROTECT the right of nations to enculturate students in ways not considered to violate the right of independent thought.
e) ENCOURAGE and PROTECT a nation's choice to go beyond the standards set in this Act.

IV) MANDATE that all WA member nations make education, as defined under this Act, readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of high-level brain activity.

V) MANDATE that financial aid for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, given that the nation falls under one or more qualifications listed below:
a) the nation is unable to fiscally meet the requirements of this Act, after instituting every possible fund-raising operation, within the means of maintaining economic stability, or
b) the nation has no existing educational system or infrastructure.

VI) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid, based on the legitimacy of the requests.

We will try it this way, the most notable change being the following:
c) DEFINE and PROTECT the right of independent thought of all individuals: to critically examine, analyze, and otherwise thoroughly investigate all problems, solutions, ideologies, doctrines, subjects, and other ideas, in the pursuit of attaining a conclusion independent of any other conclusion.

Other changes include the definition of education (minor), and a rewrite of the preamble. The underline indicates that I am still open to suggestions for rewriting the definition.

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

V) MANDATE that financial aid for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund, given that the nation falls under one or more qualifications listed below:Illegal House of Cards provision. If the General Fund were ever repealed, there would be no source of funding for this act whatsoever. The "committees exception" on HoC does not apply here either, I don't think, because the WAGF is not a committee.

Illegal House of Cards provision. If the General Fund were ever repealed, there would be no source of funding for this act whatsoever. The "committees exception" on HoC does not apply here either, I don't think, because the WAGF is not a committee.If we cannot use the General Fund, then what is the point of even having it? Why write "Disappointed by the previous practice of continually establishing programs and imposing mandates upon member states without stipulating how they will be funded;" if you are not providing a way for these mandates to be funded? That very part of the preamble permits for the WAGF to be used to fund resolutions. If it's illegal to use the funds, then there isn't really any purpose to collect the money, thus no purpose for the WAGF at all.

Furthermore the second clause states: "and the monies from which shall be spent only on maintaining the administration of the WA and missions established by a vote of the World Assembly". Unless there's something I'm not aware of, the only things the World Assembly votes on are resolutions. Linking that information with the clause, the "missions" spoken of are the resolutions themselves.

I remember the General Fund debate, and it's a surprise to me that throughout the entire debate, I would think that the money was to be used for funding programs created by resolutions, if indeed that was never the purpose of the General Fund.

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

This bit is a touch unnecessary, since your redraft swaps this problem for one of complexity and clarity instead, but you did ask.
What lead you to think that "especially to uncritically imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view" isn't a qualifier? Perhaps the word "especially"?
Exactly. "Especially" indicates that what follows is the primary target of the preceeding clause, the main focus if you like. What it does not in any way do is limit the preceding clause. It tells us what you expect the definition to be used for, but it doesn't change the definition itself, and it doesn't bar other uses for the definition. In fact, "especially" strongly implies that there are other uses for the definition, even if they aren't what you're interested in.

However, the definition given certainly does permit the teaching of religion and politics. I'm wondering if you have the same misunderstanding as the Ambassador of Rutianas does; mixing up education and indoctrination. The difference between educating about politics and indoctrinating politics is that, when indoctrinating, you are not giving any chance for the students to be critical of what you're teaching.
The definition, once all the singing and dancing is over, was this:

the instruction in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc.

This was the proposal's definition of "indoctrination", which is the only one that matters. It makes it rather hard to educate ("instruct") anyone about religion or politics (the only two areas where indoctrination was prohibited) at all rather difficult, wouldn't you say?

Weren't you the one that told me to use the General Fund? I certainly know that I wasn't the one that came up with the idea to us it.
Duh. I should have spotted that a long time ago. The General Fund is what will get used if the WA is supposed to pay for something and no other funding mechanism is proposed. If the General Fund gets repealed, then we're just back in the bad old days when the WA and its predecessor blithely promised to pay for things without actually having any money. That was never a legal problem, just a practical one.


You asked for suggestions about the definition of "child". My considered suggestion: don't define it. Concentrate instead on what's supposed to be being delivered -- primary education. Something that I'd missed in the various redrafts is that this legislation is now defining standards, except that it isn't. Wasn't there a committee to do that at one stage?

Ambassador and friend from Glen-Rhodes,

i apologize once again for my absence, and seeing i am a co-author i should be here more often however, i've been so busy. i must respond to so many questions and critiques.

first off, this resolution in it's newest form never limits religious teaching. the religious clauses were removed from it a very long time ago, giving theocracies, and/or any other nation and government genre to teach as it pleases concerning religion. it never restricts that part.

i would greatly urge, all nations who are have decided to no longer partake in this debate, to reconsider. i would also ask my partner to control himself. all views are valued here. My partner and I are open to all suggestion. in any case, the basic language concerning indoctrination and education have generally been removed to go on with a more efficient debate.

we all recognize that we've been debating this for a very long time, and this proposal has changed much since it's beginning, however, the very best resolutions are created through these type of debates.

tempers may rise and fall, however, this resolution will pass better than before.

I am greatly distressed about the General Fund financing problem. however, if it is an actual violation we should make the necessary changes. i would advise changing the wording to:

"V) MANDATE that financial aid for the Universal Education Act come from the World Assembly General Fund and/or any other means provided/created by the World Assembly,"

the rewording, doesn't have to take the exact form, however, i know you'll under my idea.

i would agree with the the ambassador from Gobbannaen that the definition of child is unneccessary. if you removed or kept it, it wouldn't make much of a difference.

Wachichi. contact me in NS for any questions or suggestions.

i would greatly urge, all nations who are have decided to no longer partake in this debate, to reconsider. i would also ask my partner to control himself. all views are valued here. My partner and I are open to all suggestion. in any case, the basic language concerning indoctrination and education have generally been removed to go on with a more efficient debate.

While we are pleased to see that 'indoctrination' has been removed, I am hesitant about continuing with anything further where the delegation from Glen Rhodes is concerned. It does not appear to me that he is 'open to all suggestion' as you have put it.

i would agree with the the ambassador from Gobbannaen that the definition of child is unneccessary. if you removed or kept it, it wouldn't make much of a difference.

As do I. There is no point in defining a child as different cultures hold 'primary' education at different points in a child's life. As long as the different states must conform to basic standards, then it should be considered compliance.

I am hesitant on the enculturing portion though. Why should we have to teach 'all ideologies, doctrines, etc.' With the scope of nations here, do you have any idea how long that will take? It's far too complex for 'primary' education anyway. I can't think of how better to word this. This is truly something for higher education to deal with. Not primary. These are just young children.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

ambassador,

i am very pleased you have decided to continue with us. your views will be respected. i promise you that.

so we would advise my partner to remove the child definition seeing it is unnecessary in this resolution, and i guess, enough nations are behind it's removal.

speaking of the word enculturate. i don't even think that's an applicable word, it's reffering to enculturation. and there is no verb as "enculturate". it means to change or make changes. hardly relevant in my view. but i understand it's general purpose. it would refer to equal education from all viewpoints and about all ideologies without bias.

i don't know where you got that quote "all ideologies, doctrines,etc", i didn't see that language in the newest version of the resolution. maybe i missed it. please point it out for me. thank you.

Wachichi.

If we cannot use the General Fund, then what is the point of even having it? Why write "Disappointed by the previous practice of continually establishing programs and imposing mandates upon member states without stipulating how they will be funded;" if you are not providing a way for these mandates to be funded? That very part of the preamble permits for the WAGF to be used to fund resolutions. If it's illegal to use the funds, then there isn't really any purpose to collect the money, thus no purpose for the WAGF at all.

Furthermore the second clause states: "and the monies from which shall be spent only on maintaining the administration of the WA and missions established by a vote of the World Assembly". Unless there's something I'm not aware of, the only things the World Assembly votes on are resolutions. Linking that information with the clause, the "missions" spoken of are the resolutions themselves.

I remember the General Fund debate, and it's a surprise to me that throughout the entire debate, I would think that the money was to be used for funding programs created by resolutions, if indeed that was never the purpose of the General Fund.Wow. That's a lot of energy to waste on a simple rules infraction. Whyn't you calm down a little?

The WA General Fund is assumed to be automatically funding all WA programs, without resolutions even having to specify where the funds are coming from. It all derives from the strange spiderweb of rules that has come to govern the NationStates World Assembly. If resolutions did specify the WA General Fund, however, and it were then struck out by repeal, how then would the programs be funded? And how would funding be revived if a second funding mechanism were approved, but the old resolution still specified the defunct original system? That is the purpose behind the House of Cards rule, to assure that resolutions can stand on their own, without unnecessary reliance on others for sustenance.

The WAGF will take care of all your funding needs, so long as you do not jinx it by saying its name.

concerning the funding, i would advise my partner to make the changes i suggested in the comment before his last one. thank you.

Wachichi

ambassador,

i am very pleased you have decided to continue with us. your views will be respected. i promise you that.

so we would advise my partner to remove the child definition seeing it is unnecessary in this resolution, and i guess, enough nations are behind it's removal.

speaking of the word enculturate. i don't even think that's an applicable word, it's reffering to enculturation. and there is no verb as "enculturate". it means to change or make changes. hardly relevant in my view. but i understand it's general purpose. it would refer to equal education from all viewpoints and about all ideologies without bias.

i don't know where you got that quote "all ideologies, doctrines,etc", i didn't see that language in the newest version of the resolution. maybe i missed it. please point it out for me. thank you.

Wachichi.

From the new draft:
c) DEFINE and PROTECT the right of independent thought of all individuals: to critically examine, analyze, and otherwise thoroughly investigate all problems, solutions, ideologies, doctrines, subjects, and other ideas, in the pursuit of attaining a conclusion independent of any other conclusion.
d) PROTECT the right of nations to enculturate students in ways not considered to violate the right of independent thought.

The definition has that wording. I wasn't quoting exactly, but close enough. So, in order to protect the right to independent thought, we have to teach about all problems, solutions, ideologies, and so on. Otherwise, we're in violation because we haven't satisfied the definition of independent thought.

We have other issues with this protection of independent thought, but those issues will be reserved for a later remark, should this 'protection' not be removed.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

ambassador,

i wasn't accusing you, simply asking you to show me where. concerning the sentence, i would understand why you are concerning especially with the diversity in your country. however, this does give nations the right to expand past the bare minimum created by this proposal in III, e.

so if it's necessary to elongate primary education in order to cover all this then why not? however, i wouldn't want to do such seeing the costs and such. i find it hard to change that clauses language. we can't change the word "all" because it's intent is that nations take an unbiased view towards their education. therefore teaching "all" ideologies..etc.

i just realized something. perhaps looking at this in a different light may help your nation's situation. the clause you are mentioning never says anything about schools having to TEACH all the ideologies..etc. it simply defines and protects everyone's right to free thought to analyze examine... blah blah blah. (sorry for sounding unprofessional)

therefore, with that interpretation, your nation wouldn't need to education your children on EVERY SINGLE IDEOLOGY.

now that i think about it. why are children being taught ideologies? seems a bit too much. i think we're forgeting that we're teaching younglings over here.

if however, we are to remove the "child" defintion. we would also have to remove this:

"DEFINE ‘primary education’ has the series of educational courses a child must attend, until they no longer meet the requirements of a child." that part should be struck out by removing the child definition.

and now that i think about it. is clause III C. even necessary?

"c) DEFINE and PROTECT the right of independent thought of all individuals: to critically examine, analyze, and otherwise thoroughly investigate all problems, solutions, ideologies, doctrines, subjects, and other ideas, in the pursuit of attaining a conclusion independent of any other conclusion."

let's think about this for a second. do you really think, children, will be "critically examine(ing), analyze(ing), and otherwise thoroughly investigate(ing) all problems, solutions, ideologies, doctrines, subjects, and other dieas, in the pursuit of attaining a conclusion of any other conclusion?

my children certainly don't do that. not yet, their too busy learning proper language and their grammar skills. i think that whole clause should be struck out along with the definition of child and the part in primary education.

they simply arent needed and create meaningless, and probably avoidable unnecessary debate. the amount of wasted time bickering about nothing and then taking off clauses has elongated this debate much longer than it normally would have.

Wachichi

i would advise all nations to endorse the changes, and my partner to make them. thank you.

Wachichi

This was the proposal's definition of "indoctrination", which is the only one that matters. It makes it rather hard to educate ("instruct") anyone about religion or politics (the only two areas where indoctrination was prohibited) at all rather difficult, wouldn't you say?I wouldn't say so, really. It stems on the debate earlier of the differences between teaching something, and teaching about something. It's certainly the smallest nuance I've ever seen, but the impact is quite large.

You asked for suggestions about the definition of "child". My considered suggestion: don't define it. Concentrate instead on what's supposed to be being delivered -- primary education. Something that I'd missed in the various redrafts is that this legislation is now defining standards, except that it isn't. Wasn't there a committee to do that at one stage?Ms. Benson and I briefly discussed the "propensity of WA members to advocate excessive definitions", as she said it. Personally, removing the definition would be a good riddance. Practically, I was worried that there would be an uproar about what a child is. But, since you have given the suggested, I'm well enough to follow through with it.

Also, the proposal does define the standards. "III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education...". It's not standards set by mandatory testing, though. That whole attempt was an utter nightmare.

Wow. That's a lot of energy to waste on a simple rules infraction. Whyn't you calm down a little?

...

The WAGF will take care of all your funding needs, so long as you do not jinx it by saying its name.Forgive me, as you never said that funding was still available. Funding is what drove the previous version of this proposal in to the grave, and I was worried that I'd have to go back to those dark days. If the rectification of the violation is as simple as not including a funding clause at all, then that seems doable. Though, would the Education Funding Committee still be able to exist as it currently does? It's meant to protect against excessive spending; such as marble toilet seats in the girl's restroom.

The definition has that wording. I wasn't quoting exactly, but close enough. So, in order to protect the right to independent thought, we have to teach about all problems, solutions, ideologies, and so on. Otherwise, we're in violation because we haven't satisfied the definition of independent thought.

We have other issues with this protection of independent thought, but those issues will be reserved for a later remark, should this 'protection' not be removed.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas AmbassadorYou're a bit confused, Ambassador Jenner. To be in compliance with the clause, you would simply have to make accessible the 'roadways', if you will, used to "critically examine, analyze, and otherwise thoroughly investigate" such things. The thing about rights is that people have the choice of whether or not to exercise them. I may have the right to marry another man, but that doesn't mean that I have to.

Though, I do see a fault in the clause. Since it is under article III, the right to independent thought applies only to those undergoing primary education. Noticing that, I should move the right to its own article.
now that i think about it. why are children being taught ideologies? seems a bit too much. i think we're forgeting that we're teaching younglings over here.Forgive me, but I think that you severely underestimate the goals of certain regimes. The best time to brainwash somebody is when they are a child. Why wouldn't they do it?

That being said, the clause is absolutely necessary. It seems that, Ambassador, you have fallen in to inexorable hole of thinking that because this is a proposal for children, it must be written in a child's level. A child certainly does examine, analyze, and investigate things. While it may not be on a level akin to an adult, it doesn't mean that the child isn't doing it.

CONCLUDING that education promotes economic and social growth,

ADHERING to the idea of the right to knowledge,

POSITING that the World Assembly has the responsibility to define and protect a child's right to education,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE 'education' as the act or process of imparting or acquiring knowledge, developing the cognitive abilities of reasoning and judgment, and preparing oneself or others for mature life.
DEFINE ‘primary education’ has the series of educational courses a child must attend, until their WA member nation no longer requires.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by any means deemed appropriate.

III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education:
a) SUCH a standard shall consist of language arts, mathematics, history, science, and health education as defined by this Act, that proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) DEFINING the following courses:
i) language arts as listening, reading, writing, and speaking in a given language
ii) mathematics as learning and applying basic arithmetic and geometric operations
iii) history as learning of records and narrative descriptions of significant past events and people, in respect to the WA member nation
iv) science as the effort to discover, and increase understanding of how the natural world works, through observation and experimentation
d) PROTECT the right of nations to enculturate students in ways not considered to violate the right of independent thought.
e) ENCOURAGE and PROTECT a nation's choice to go beyond the standards set in this Act.

IV) MANDATE that all WA member nations make education, as defined under this Act, readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of high-level brain activity.

V) DEFINE and PROTECT the right of independent thought of all individuals: to critically examine, analyze, and otherwise thoroughly investigate all problems, solutions, ideologies, doctrines, subjects, and other ideas, in the pursuit of attaining a conclusion independent of any other conclusion.

VI) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid, based on the legitimacy of the requests.
Italicized article is under question.

Also, for those of you who expressed discontent with it, I've removed the wording that prevented private schools from being affected by this legislation. After speaking to the Secy. of Education of Glen-Rhodes, we had agreed that since the legislation no longer bans religion and science from meshing, then there is no need to protect religion-based private schools.

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

the committee is perfectly legal, however, i do still have a problem with the funding.

if we're going to keep out the financing section, clause VI. seems like it is just a burst of randomness into the proposal. we must either include a clause stating something such as.

"Funding will come from means developed and/or already existent in the WA",

or we need to elongate clause VI. to be

VI) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid, based on the legitimacy of the requests- for funding toward either educational systems if necessary-.

don't include that by word, however, we need to somehow state that this money would only go to nations who's educational systems need help, or a nation needs financial help creating an educational system.

Wachichi

if we're going to keep out the financing section, clause VI. seems like it is just a burst of randomness into the proposal. we must either include a clause stating something such as.

"Funding will come from means developed and/or already existent in the WA",
This is already done with article II. The wording can be improved, but a clause like this already does exist.
II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by any means deemed appropriate.
Could be changed to:
II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians, wherein funding is provided by the WA member nation by means of developed or already existent funds, belonging to the WA member nation or the World Assembly.
There could be arguments against such wording, however.

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

DEFINE ‘primary education’ has the series of educational courses a child must attend, until they no longer meet the requirements of a child.

Compulsory school attendance is contradictory to basic human freedoms, as it forces a human being to be detained against their will, without a court order. I urge you to work in that school attendance should be available, but not mandatory,

Compulsory school attendance is contradictory to basic human freedoms, as it forces a human being to be detained against their will, without a court order. I urge you to work in that school attendance should be available, but not mandatory,That's a rather mighty stretch...

Besides, if school attendance is made to "be available, but not mandatory", then there is nothing stopping a nation from indirectly preventing children from attending school. Nobody is dictating truancy laws, though.

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

just change "must" to "should".

you misunderstood me ambassador. i meant, there must be a clause that states that the WA itself will provide financial assistance to WA nations who can't afford it. Clause II isn't relevant to my suggestion and the changes you suggested aren't relevent either.

"VI) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Funding Committee, to approve, deny, and generally oversee all requests for financial aid - if the nation is financial unable to pay for the establishment, or sustainability of that nation's education system-, based on the legitimacy of the requests."

we need to include the appropriate language to let nations know, that if they can't afford their education systems, they can come to the committee and apply for financial aid for their educational system.

Wachichi

we need to include the appropriate language to let nations know, that if they can't afford their education systems, they can come to the committee and apply for financial aid for their educational system.

Wachichi
II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians. Funding is to be provided by the WA member nation, by means of developed or already existing funds belonging to the WA member nation or -- if the WA member nation is financially unable to establish or sustain an education system -- the World Assembly.
This should suffice, really. It's a bit of a run-on, but it certainly does work.

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

f) PROHIBITS the teaching of science and religion in the same course.

I agree. They should be a seperate course. But you should also put Personal Development and Physical Education in a different class too. That's what i've done.

To the delegation from Wachichi,

In reference to independent thought. This is all and good for nations who don't really care about what their people think. However, for some countries, giving these children the right to independent thought is equal to handing them a figurative gun. These people will likely decide that their government is not fit to rule. What happens then? Civil war. People will die. These children that have the right to independent thought will clearly become targets in these civil wars as governments attempt to maintain control. I don't know if Glen-Rhodes wishes for this outcome, but attempting to assure freedom of independent thought seems very out of place for a primary education proposal. This is not a proposal that should affect anyone else. However, according to your co-authors words, he apparently believes that by slipping it into it's own clause, it will affect all individuals. This is honestly unacceptable. Completely unacceptable. This form of trickery should not be allowed.

Also, private education should not be legislated on! This is something that parents pay for and now you're telling these parents that it doesn't matter if their children go to public or private schools. There cannot be any more specialized education. Our children do know what their career will be even when they are young. Aptitude tests show what they are best suited for and they are placed in the proper schools. I went to a school which trained me from age five in different forms of government as well as the legal field. If you're going to include private education, it should be as simple as reading, writing, and arithmetic. Nothing more. And it should be in it's own section. To group them together is potentially going to diminish education instead of improving it. Have some reason here.

I pray the honorable delegation from Wachichi can gain some control over this instead of bowing to the whims of the delegation from Glen-Rhodes.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

OOC: You've dropped the definition of 'child'? That's a pity...

(Yes, I did have a good reason for liking the inclusion of that definition: No, I'm not going to explain what it was... Take a close look at its wording [if you can still find a copy of it, somewhere in this thread], and you should be able to see the reason why I liked it for yourselves... ;))

f) PROHIBITS the teaching of science and religion in the same course.

I agree. They should be a seperate course. But you should also put Personal Development and Physical Education in a different class too. That's what i've done.
You are looking at an incredibly out-dated revision...

In reference to independent thought. This is all and good for nations who don't really care about what their people think. However, for some countries, giving these children the right to independent thought is equal to handing them a figurative gun. These people will likely decide that their government is not fit to rule. What happens then? Civil war. People will die. These children that have the right to independent thought will clearly become targets in these civil wars as governments attempt to maintain control. I'm sure that any other representative in this organization could think of a thousand more ways that a right to independent thought could be troublesome. I'm also sure that the right to marry whoever you please is troublesome to certain nations; I would imagine that a homophobic nation wouldn't take so kindly to homosexual marriages, and just might fall in to civil war. However, we passed the Freedom of Marriage Act, did we not?

What you are supporting is, blatantly, indoctrination, censorship, and the most vile form of regime. While the World Assembly cannot ban forms of government, we surely can extend rights to people that undercut the goals of said forms. Apart from the Freedom of Marriage Act, I can name five other passed resolutions that undercut the goals of certain forms of government: Restrictions on Child Labor, Prevention of Torture, Sexual Privacy Act, Ban on Slavery and Trafficking, and Freedom of Assembly. This doesn't even include Fair Criminal Trial, which was repealed, but its assumed replacement might as well be added to this list.

I have said it before, and I believe I will say it a great number of times in the future: the fact that a government will be inconvenienced by a resolution is not a reason for the resolution to not be passed. Opposing the suggestion that children be allowed to think independently because it might cause a civil war, is just supporting a delay of the inevitable. If a government must maintain strict censorship, going so far as to deny their citizens to think on their own, then it is only a matter of time before civil war breaks out on its own accord. Would it not be better for the citizens if they had the support of international law?

I don't know if Glen-Rhodes wishes for this outcome, but attempting to assure freedom of independent thought seems very out of place for a primary education proposal. This is not a proposal that should affect anyone else. However, according to your co-authors words, he apparently believes that by slipping it into it's own clause, it will affect all individuals. This is honestly unacceptable. Completely unacceptable. This form of trickery should not be allowed.I don't see why it shouldn't be included, Ambassador. Thinking on your own is essentially a requirement for substantial education. It seems natural that it be included. Furthermore, there's no trickery going on. If there was, I would have never stated my intentions in moving to its own clause. I believe in transparency, Ambassador.

I went to a school which trained me from age five in different forms of government as well as the legal field. If you're going to include private education, it should be as simple as reading, writing, and arithmetic. Nothing more.I shudder at the thought of legislators being so narrowly educated. It seems rather irresponsible that the people who, for example, legislate on education would not even be educated in all the common facets. Why shouldn't a law professor be learned in science? What's the reason for a novelist to not know about their body? It's all very nonsensical, if you ask me.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes
OOC: You've dropped the definition of 'child'? That's a pity...

(Yes, I did have a good reason for liking the inclusion of that definition: No, I'm not going to explain what it was... Take a close look at its wording [if you can still find a copy of it, somewhere in this thread], and you should be able to see the reason why I liked it for yourselves... ;))

OOC: I would imagine it was because of the use of fractions, and the fact that it was based off of each nation's own age of consent. But, more people have disliked it than they have liked it...

Ms. Benson and I briefly discussed the "propensity of WA members to advocate excessive definitions", as she said it. Personally, removing the definition would be a good riddance. Practically, I was worried that there would be an uproar about what a child is. But, since you have given the suggested, I'm well enough to follow through with it.
There probably will still be an uproar; you can't please some of the people any of the time. You might want to think carefully about the definition of 'primary education', and how in particular it differs from secondary education. A couple of minutes thinking while waiting for my tea to brew suggests that primary education equips children to learn, while secondary education adds necessary academic and practical stuff. I've no idea whether that stands up to any scrutiny, though.

Also, the proposal does define the standards. "III) ESTABLISH a universal standard for primary education...".
Ish. Unless you're using the word "standard" in some non-obvious sense, there's a large degree of handwaving as to what those standards are.

It's not standards set by mandatory testing, though. That whole attempt was an utter nightmare.
Agreed! This is the point I'd reach for a committee and task it with coming up with common minimum standards of education where they are reasonable, and assisting national governments in creating local minimum standards otherwise.

Though, would the Education Funding Committee still be able to exist as it currently does? It's meant to protect against excessive spending; such as marble toilet seats in the girl's restroom.
It would be legal. You could add it to the General Accounting Office's duties instead if you wanted, because adding to a committee's job description is fine -- before you ask, the General Fund itself isn't a committee! I'm not sure that funding work isn't really a subject for a different resolution, though.

Also, for those of you who expressed discontent with it, I've removed the wording that prevented private schools from being affected by this legislation. After speaking to the Secy. of Education of Glen-Rhodes, we had agreed that since the legislation no longer bans religion and science from meshing, then there is no need to protect religion-based private schools.
I approve of your decision, even if your logic remains as impenetrable as ever.

I note in passing that, contrary to what it claims, the proposal doesn't define health education.

OOC: I would imagine it was because of the use of fractions, and the fact that it was based off of each nation's own age of consent. But, more people have disliked it than they have liked it...
OOC: I would imagine it had more to do with loose wording I specifically warned you about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are any citizens of St Edmund below the Age of Majority.

--
Permanant Undersecretary Cerys Coch, currently busy changing name-plates.

There probably will still be an uproar; you can't please some of the people any of the time. You might want to think carefully about the definition of 'primary education', and how in particular it differs from secondary education. A couple of minutes thinking while waiting for my tea to brew suggests that primary education equips children to learn, while secondary education adds necessary academic and practical stuff. I've no idea whether that stands up to any scrutiny, though.While I partly share your thoughts on the purposes of primary education (I wouldn't say that that's the only purpose of it; perhaps the lower levels of primary education), many nations have expressed their concerns about the wild diversity of education systems throughout the World Assembly. If the definition of primary education is changed, those changing it would have to be extremely careful. Using a definition as "the series of educational courses that prepare a child to learn", purely for example, might be breaching the line of directly shaping education systems and curricula.
Ish. Unless you're using the word "standard" in some non-obvious sense, there's a large degree of handwaving as to what those standards are.I'm using 'standards' as a minimum level of quality, and partly efficiency; if that clears anything up.
Agreed! This is the point I'd reach for a committee and task it with coming up with common minimum standards of education where they are reasonable, and assisting national governments in creating local minimum standards otherwise.A committee tasked with assisting governments in setting local minimum standards, or, if possible, setting internationally common standards, seems doable. I'm assuming you're referring to things like (notice the emphasis) standardized testing. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
It would be legal. You could add it to the General Accounting Office's duties instead if you wanted, because adding to a committee's job description is fine -- before you ask, the General Fund itself isn't a committee!That's good news.
I'm not sure that funding work isn't really a subject for a different resolution, though.I don't see why not. We have the space, and funding isn't incredibly difficult. It was included in previous revisions without too much argument. Since the money comes from the WAGF, a considerable portion of standard funding clauses -- where the funds come from, and how -- is cut out.
I note in passing that, contrary to what it claims, the proposal doesn't define health education.

Permanant Undersecretary Cerys Coch, currently busy changing name-plates.Ah, yes. Thank you for pointing that out.

CONCLUDING that education promotes economic and social growth,

ADHERING to the idea of the right to knowledge,

POSITING that the World Assembly has the responsibility to define and protect a child's right to education,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE 'education' as the act or process of imparting or acquiring knowledge, developing the cognitive abilities of reasoning and judgment, and preparing oneself or others for mature life.
DEFINE ‘primary education’ has the series of educational courses a child must attend, until their WA member nation no longer requires.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians.

III) ESTABLISH minimum required courses for primary education:
a) SUCH required courses shall be language arts, mathematics, history, science, and health education, as proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) DEFINING the following courses:
i) language arts as listening, reading, writing, and speaking in a given language
ii) mathematics as learning and applying basic arithmetic and geometric operations
iii) history as learning of records and narrative descriptions of significant past events and people, in respect to the WA member nation
iv) science as the effort to discover, and increase understanding of how the natural world works, through observation and experimentation

IV) ENCOURAGE and PROTECT a nation's choice to go beyond the minimum required courses set in this Act.

V) ESTABLISH the right of independent thought of all individuals: to critically examine, analyze, and otherwise thoroughly investigate all problems, solutions, ideologies, doctrines, subjects, and other ideas, in the pursuit of attaining a conclusion independent of any other conclusion.

VI) PROTECT the right of nations to enculturate students in ways not considered to violate the right of independent thought.

VII) MANDATE that all WA member nations make education readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of standard-level brain activity.

VIII) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Services Committee, which is tasked with assisting in the establishment of internationally common standards of education where reasonable, and assisting national governments with the establishment of local standards of education where unreasonable.

IX) AMEND the duties of the General Accounting Office to include approving, denying, and generally managing all requests for financial aid, based on the qualifications of the requesting WA member nation, and the fiscal responsibility of those requests.
a) A WA member nation qualifies for financial aid if it meets one or all of the following criteria:
i) the nation is unable to financially meet the requirements of this Act, after instituting every possible fund-raising operation, within the means of maintaining economic stability;
ii) the nation has no existing education system or infrastructure.

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

OOC: I would imagine it had more to do with loose wording I specifically warned you about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are any citizens of St Edmund below the Age of Majority.
You're right. Ditto for Bears Armed, too.. although technically speaking, in fact, there aren't actually any citizens "of Bears Armed" at all: Citizenship can only be held in one or another of the Clans (or Free Septs, or other groups) that collectively comprise this confederation...

You're right. Ditto for Bears Armed, too.. although technically speaking, in fact, there aren't actually any citizens "of Bears Armed" at all: Citizenship can only be held in one or another of the Clans (or Free Septs, or other groups) that collectively comprise this confederation...

OOC: Oh, well now that's just plain sneaky. :P

To avoid charges of illegal amendment, I would recommend using 'EXTEND' as the activating verb in Clause IX. It's also not clear to me why IX has a subclause (a), given it has no further subclauses. That should either be incorporated into IX, or split off to a separate clause (you have the character space).

We are extremely disappointed the requirement for sex education has been dropped, especially given clause IV would prevent a separate resolution from addressing this issue. If it can't be done in this proposal, that's a shame. But to prevent the WA from ever addressing it? Downright irresponsible. I can't find in the drafting discussion where the idea to drop this came from.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

To avoid charges of illegal amendment, I would recommend using 'EXTEND' as the activating verb in Clause IX. It's also not clear to me why IX has a subclause (a), given it has no further subclauses. That should either be incorporated into IX, or split off to a separate clause (you have the character space).I figured that the use of AMEND would be a bit iffy. Even though it's not illegal, I have no qualms over changing AMEND to EXTEND. Also, I used sub-clauses for organizational purposes, but if you think IX.a is better off as its own article, then so be it.

We are extremely disappointed the requirement for sex education has been dropped, especially given clause IV would prevent a separate resolution from addressing this issue. If it can't be done in this proposal, that's a shame. But to prevent the WA from ever addressing it? Downright irresponsible. I can't find in the drafting discussion where the idea to drop this came from.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of WysteriaHm. The intention was to broaden the subjects covered that are touched on by sex education. Not to remove sex education altogether. The suggestion came from my co-author (though, no offense, but I feel that the current proposal has no resemblance to his proposal; he hasn't been as productive as I had imagine, essentially taking a back seat in the writing process. I had hoped that removing the 'Co-authored by Wachichi' text would have clued him in that it is, so far, his proposal too, but his level of participation could use some attention):

i must bring up the sex education once more. i don't really care if a nation teachers sex to children who have barely reached puberty or not, however, i think it would make this resolution much more attractive to nations, and less questions and confusion, if we changed the sex ed part, into a health education. it would therefore allow nations to teach health classes, (classes teaching students how to be healthy) and/or sex ed if that nation prefers to teach it's young children about sex..etc. or it allows the nation to teach both, sex ed, and health of the body and mind.

CONCLUDING that education promotes economic and social growth,

ADHERING to the idea of the right to knowledge,

POSITING that the World Assembly has the responsibility to define and protect a child's right to education,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE 'education' as the act or process of imparting or acquiring knowledge, developing the cognitive abilities of reasoning and judgment, and preparing oneself or others for mature life.
DEFINE ‘primary education’ has the series of educational courses a child must attend, until their WA member nation no longer requires.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians.

III) ESTABLISH minimum required courses for primary education:
a) SUCH required courses shall be language arts, mathematics, history, science, and health education, as proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) DEFINING the following courses:
i) language arts as listening, reading, writing, and speaking in a given language
ii) mathematics as learning and applying basic arithmetic and geometric operations
iii) history as learning of records and narrative descriptions of significant past events and people, in respect to the WA member nation
iv) science as the effort to discover, and increase understanding of how the natural world works, through observation and experimentation
v) health education as education that increases the awareness and knowledge relating to the improvement of health on a personal and community basis.

IV) ENCOURAGE and PROTECT a nation's choice to go beyond the minimum required courses set in this Act.

V) ESTABLISH the right of independent thought of all individuals: to critically examine, analyze, and otherwise thoroughly investigate all problems, solutions, ideologies, doctrines, subjects, and other ideas, in the pursuit of attaining a conclusion independent of any other conclusion.

VI) PROTECT the right of nations to enculturate students in ways not considered to violate the right of independent thought.

VII) MANDATE that all WA member nations make education readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of standard-level brain activity.

VIII) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Services Committee, which is tasked with assisting in the establishment of internationally common standards of education where reasonable, and assisting national governments with the establishment of local standards of education where internationally common standards of education are infeasible.

IX) EXTEND the duties of the General Accounting Office to include approving, denying, and generally managing all requests for financial aid, based on the qualifications of the requesting WA member nation as written in Article X, and the fiscal responsibility of those requests.

X) A WA member nation qualifies for financial aid if it meets one or all of the following criteria:
a) the nation is unable to financially meet the requirements of this Act, after instituting every possible fund-raising operation, within the means of maintaining economic stability;
b) the nation has no existing education system or infrastructure.

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

Perhaps this is me being unduly cynical, but I'm not convinced nations that don't want to teach sex education will do so unless it is specified. 'Health education' is so broad that they could meet the requirement by teaching children to eat carrots and brush their teeth. I was willing to accept a fairly loose definition of sex education that might, in some nations, be used to stick to a narrow curriculum, but allowing the option to be evaded entirely is not really in order.

I don't mind if your proposal doesn't address sex education (though I'd rather it did) but your clause IV means no future proposal could tackle the subject, thus preventing the WA from ever legislating on sex education.

Encouraging health education is good, but not to the exclusion of sexual education.

-- Samantha Benson

Perhaps this is me being unduly cynical, but I'm not convinced nations that don't want to teach sex education will do so unless it is specified. 'Health education' is so broad that they could meet the requirement by teaching children to eat carrots and brush their teeth. I was willing to accept a fairly loose definition of sex education that might, in some nations, be used to stick to a narrow curriculum, but allowing the option to be evaded entirely is not really in order.

I don't mind if your proposal doesn't address sex education (though I'd rather it did) but your clause IV means no future proposal could tackle the subject, thus preventing the WA from ever legislating on sex education.

Encouraging health education is good, but not to the exclusion of sexual education.

-- Samantha BensonI am not against including sex education, Ms. Benson. However, I don't want to completely dismiss the additions and revisions of my co-author. I do feel, however, that perhaps health education is too broad. Furthermore, if we're going to legislate it, we might as well make it as close to perfect as possible, since we cannot go back and change it if we think of something better. While the Ambassador of Wachichi may feel that a inoffensive, centrist approach must be taken, the authority has been placed on to me, and I feel that your concerns trump his on this particular issue. Though, I am going to still mandate health education on top of sex education.

CONCLUDING that education promotes economic and social growth,

ADHERING to the idea of the right to knowledge,

POSITING that the World Assembly has the responsibility to define and protect a child's right to education,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE 'education' as the act or process of imparting or acquiring knowledge, developing the cognitive abilities of reasoning and judgment, and preparing oneself or others for mature life.
DEFINE ‘primary education’ has the series of educational courses a child must attend, until their WA member nation no longer requires.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the children and their parents or guardians.

III) ESTABLISH minimum required courses for primary education:
a) SUCH required courses shall be language arts, mathematics, history, science, health education, and sex education, as proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development.
b) DEFINING the following courses:
i) language arts as listening, reading, writing, and speaking in a given language
ii) mathematics as learning and applying basic arithmetic and geometric operations
iii) history as learning of records and narrative descriptions of significant past events and people, in respect to the WA member nation
iv) science as the effort to discover, and increase understanding of how the natural world works, through observation and experimentation
v) health education as education that increases the awareness and knowledge relating to the improvement of health on a personal and community basis
vi) sex education as learning of sexual anatomy, sexual reproduction, and sexual maturation, and the consequences thereof.

IV) ENCOURAGE and PROTECT a nation's choice to go beyond the minimum required courses set in this Act.

V) ESTABLISH the right of independent thought of all individuals: to critically examine, analyze, and otherwise thoroughly investigate all problems, solutions, ideologies, doctrines, subjects, and other ideas, in the pursuit of attaining a conclusion independent of any other conclusion.

VI) PROTECT the right of nations to enculturate students in ways not considered to violate the right of independent thought.

VII) MANDATE that all WA member nations make education readily available to children of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of standard-level brain activity.

VIII) ESTABLISH a World Assembly Education Services Committee, which is tasked with assisting in the establishment of internationally common standards of education where reasonable, and assisting national governments with the establishment of local standards of education where internationally common standards of education are infeasible.

IX) EXTEND the duties of the General Accounting Office to include approving, denying, and generally managing all requests for financial aid, based on the qualifications of the requesting WA member nation as written in Article X, and the fiscal responsibility of those requests.

X) A WA member nation qualifies for financial aid if it meets one or all of the following criteria:
a) the nation is unable to financially meet the requirements of this Act, after instituting every possible fund-raising operation, within the means of maintaining economic stability;
b) the nation has no existing education system or infrastructure.

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

I'm using 'standards' as a minimum level of quality, and partly efficiency; if that clears anything up.
In the sense that it confirms my original view that we were claiming to define standards but then not actually defining them, yes. Fortunately the Education Services Committee renders that moot.

A committee tasked with assisting governments in setting local minimum standards, or, if possible, setting internationally common standards, seems doable. I'm assuming you're referring to things like (notice the emphasis) standardized testing. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
Only very vaguely. I'm not assuming testing at all, necessarily, if an education system doesn't work that way. I am assuming that the core curricula themselves should meet standards, never mind how well or badly a teacher delivers those curricula.

--
Cerys Coch, who has finally dragged enough minions out of the bar to get the cleaning done here.

concerning the sex education,

by only including health education, it allows a nation to teach sex ed, or not. it allows a nation to decide, whether to teach their children about sex, when they are very young. my nation, like many others, doesn't teach sex ed till 8th grade and NOT during primary education.

as written: "a) SUCH required courses shall be language arts, mathematics, history, science, health education, and sex education, as proves most useful to each child's individual education plan or intellectual development."

it seems to imply that sex ed and health ed are two different things. also, as written, sex ed is REQUIRED! to be taught to little children. the Nation of Wachichi refuses to teach it's children about sex at their age like so many other nations. we only teach sex ed in the secondary education and NOT primary. a change in language would be more appropriate, though i would favor the older version concerning the sex/health ed.

sex and health ed are one and the same. the health ed clause requires nations to teach about health, however, it allows them the flexibility to NOT teach younglings about sex until secondary education (or never at all) or it allows nations the freedom to teach their children about sex in a young age. it also allows nations to teach about the health of the students and how to be fit and healthy.

for those reasons, i would favor returning the clauses as they were before.

Wachichi

That's a rather mighty stretch...


Not at all. What else do you call forcing people to remain in a certain building for a period of time than imprisonment? Considering the lack of a court order, compulsory schooling (though not, at least by this reasoning, compulsory education) is a human rights violation as it is long-term imprisonment without being charged of a crime.

by only including health education, it allows a nation to teach sex ed, or not. it allows a nation to decide, whether to teach their children about sex, when they are very young. my nation, like many others, doesn't teach sex ed till 8th grade and NOT during primary education. Perhaps then, change Wachichi's definition of primary education to include eighth grade?

sex and health ed are one and the same. the health ed clause requires nations to teach about health, however, it allows them the flexibility to NOT teach younglings about sex until secondary education (or never at all) or it allows nations the freedom to teach their children about sex in a young age. it also allows nations to teach about the health of the students and how to be fit and healthy.

for those reasons, i would favor returning the clauses as they were before.

WachichiI wouldn't say that sex and health education are the same thing. They share common characteristics, but health education is far more broad.

Not at all. What else do you call forcing people to remain in a certain building for a period of time than imprisonment? Considering the lack of a court order, compulsory schooling (though not, at least by this reasoning, compulsory education) is a human rights violation as it is long-term imprisonment without being charged of a crime.Comic relief is always a good thing, I guess.

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

To the Ambassador of Glen-Rhodes,


i would urge my partner to make the changes mentioned in my last post.

there is something small that has irritated me for a while, but there were bigger problems to deal with at the time. and it's in the preamble. the first sentence starts with "Concluding". hardly the STARTING language of anything. maybe it should be changed to "Affirming" or "Believing" or "Recognizing". preferrably "Recognizing".

Wachichi

i would wonder why my partner is acting so dimwitted?

i don't mean to stir up emotions, however, his comments are exactly the type many members have complained to me about. i will NOT change my laws. you have to be the one to reconsider the proposal to accomodate nations, not the other way around.

health and sex ed are very similar, and BECAUSE of their similarity, only including health ed would be better for nations. i can't possibly support a proposal(my own or not) that forces nations to teach younglings about SEX. they are far too young. i would ask my partner to be much more open minded and polite in this debate.

Wachichi

this is by far the strongest language i have used because i have been patient however, my patience, like many other nation's will run out soon. :D

i don't mean to stir up emotions, however, his comments are exactly the type many members have complained to me about. i will NOT change my laws. you have to be the one to reconsider the proposal to accomodate nations, not the other way around. I disagree. Resolutions are not there to state what nations have in common, and to thus crease a law that doesn't affect anyone. Resolutions are there to force nations to conform to an idea of what certain ambassadors think is the right or wrong way of doing things. I will say this again: the fact that a government will be inconvenienced by a resolution is not a reason for the resolution to not be passed.

Simply because the current education system of a government will have to change, does not mean the proposal is flawed. My job is not to find a way for all nations to be in agreement; I moved away from that type of diplomacy years ago.

My job, right now, is ensure that children are educated in a way that I deem acceptable. If, along the way, I must change my thoughts on what is acceptable, like I have many times already, then that's fine. However, I have not spent months debating this just to write a law that accommodates all nations, and doesn't force them to change how they do things. I don't intend to, either.

health and sex ed are very similar, and BECAUSE of their similarity, only including health ed would be better for nations. i can't possibly support a proposal(my own or not) that forces nations to teach younglings about SEX. they are far too young. i would ask my partner to be much more open minded and polite in this debate.

Wachichi

this is by far the strongest language i have used because i have been patient however, my patience, like many other nation's will run out soon. :D Because math and chemistry, for example, are very similar, should I go and ask the lawmakers of Glen-Rhodes to mandate 'the use of numbers', rather than math and chemistry? Simply because two things are similar does not mean that one encompasses the other. Sex education has a specific purpose: to education about bodily functions during and after puberty, and to promote being safe and healthy. Health education serves an astoundingly broader purpose, and molding the two together can only result in both losing part of their purposes.

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

i understand your stances, HOWEVER, how can you expect nations to teach 8-9 year old and younger in primary education to be taught things about sex at their age!

your job isn't to promote your ideals. your job is to promote what you believe that co-orrelates with the views of other nations. if everyone took your mindset, no nation would ever get something past. and if your job is to further your stances, than why are you hear debating the topic? why didn't we just send it to vote? you know why?

because without debate and compromise with other nations in such a debate scenario, no resolution could be passed. both our seperate education acts failed by only a few votes, but they failed non-the less. so we combined the two and started the forum in order to take into account other member nations' stances on the issue and incorporate it into the proposal. we didn't start this debate, in order to ignore the stances of other nations.

you can't expect nations to teach younglings about sex and corrupt their minds at a young age. i personally can't imagine a nation ever would.

also, consider the changes:
there is something small that has irritated me for a while, but there were bigger problems to deal with at the time. and it's in the preamble. the first sentence starts with "Concluding". hardly the STARTING language of anything. maybe it should be changed to "Affirming" or "Believing" or "Recognizing". preferrably "Recognizing".



Wachichi

i understand your stances, HOWEVER, how can you expect nations to teach 8-9 year old and younger in primary education to be taught things about sex at their age!
The original definition of 'child' was '1/3 to 2/3 the age of consent'. For many nations, this would put the upper bound of the child's age not at 8-9, but at 11 or 12, which is plenty old enough to learn some basic topics related to sexual health.

You continually advocate compromise, but there can be no compromise with sexually transmitted disease. There is nothing about teaching children who are definitely old enough to have sex of its consequences.

-- Samantha Benson

OOC: I had sex ed classes when I was 11, and that was not uncommonly early.

i understand your stances, HOWEVER, how can you expect nations to teach 8-9 year old and younger in primary education to be taught things about sex at their age!Sex education classes do not teach sexual intercourse. The prescribed book is not the Kama Sutra.

your job isn't to promote your ideals. your job is to promote what you believe that co-orrelates with the views of other nations.Oh, no, no, no. My job description (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14227779&postcount=27) is "to debate, discuss, and vote on international legislation, in regards to the World Assembly, with the intent of furthering the views of both my nation and my political party". I made this very clear when I took the job. I am no pacifist.

if everyone took your mindset, no nation would ever get something past. and if your job is to further your stances, than why are you hear debating the topic? why didn't we just send it to vote? you know why?

because without debate and compromise with other nations in such a debate scenario, no resolution could be passed. both our seperate education acts failed by only a few votes, but they failed non-the less. so we combined the two and started the forum in order to take into account other member nations' stances on the issue and incorporate it into the proposal. we didn't start this debate, in order to ignore the stances of other nations.You're right. I want the resolution to pass, yes. But, I do not want the resolution to stray incredibly far from my ideal education resolution. I brought this to debate so that it could be discussed by, not written by, the entire Assembly. While the thoughts of other delegations are valuable, just because they say that they want something, does not mean that I will give it to them. Their input is certainly welcome and encouraged, but not binding.

there is something small that has irritated me for a while, but there were bigger problems to deal with at the time. and it's in the preamble. the first sentence starts with "Concluding". hardly the STARTING language of anything. maybe it should be changed to "Affirming" or "Believing" or "Recognizing". preferrably "Recognizing"."CONCLUDING" meaning that we have reached a decision after considerable thought.

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

My recommendation is to leave sex and religious education entirely optional, leaving member states to decide whether to include it or not in their basic education plan.

Parents should be able to withdraw their children from sensitive subjects such as sex and religion, and these subjects should be up to the member state in terms of inclusion. Basic health education is okay though: that's essential.

I would suggest the title to be "Universal Basic Education", unless you are going beyond this.

My recommendation is to leave sex and religious education entirely optional, leaving member states to decide whether to include it or not in their basic education plan.

Parents should be able to withdraw their children from sensitive subjects such as sex and religion, and these subjects should be up to the member state in terms of inclusion. Basic health education is okay though: that's essential.The definition of sex education leaves a considerable amount of wiggle room, for nations to decide what is appropriate to teach their children in regards to "sexual anatomy, sexual reproduction, and sexual maturation, and the consequences thereof". I personally think that it's better to leave it up to the governments, rather than each individual parent.

Religion, however, is completely optional (and not even mentioned). But, again, it's up to the nations to decide if parents are allowed to place their child in, or remove them from, such classes.

I would suggest the title to be "Universal Basic Education", unless you are going beyond this.I was going to bring this up before the proposal was submitted. I was going to suggest "Universal Primary Education", but it's essentially the same thing. Speaking of submission, though, I'm hoping that we're nearing that point. A certain proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=577572) is currently being debated, -- a proposal that I'm sure Ms. Benson would like to see -- and could considerably compromise this proposal. That, and the fact that the number of approvals needed to reach quorum is incredibly low (I wonder how long that'll last).

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

The original definition of 'child' was '1/3 to 2/3 the age of consent'. For many nations, this would put the upper bound of the child's age not at 8-9, but at 11 or 12, which is plenty old enough to learn some basic topics related to sexual health.

You continually advocate compromise, but there can be no compromise with sexually transmitted disease. There is nothing about teaching children who are definitely old enough to have sex of its consequences.

-- Samantha Benson

OOC: I had sex ed classes when I was 11, and that was not uncommonly early.

ambassador you bring up a good point. though i pushed for it's removal in the past because i couldn't really see a direct purpose for it, i would ask that it be re-instated. i am talking about the definition of "child". the past definition would allow my nation and many others to teach sex ed at the appropriate age. i wanted it removed before simply because i thought it was useless, however, i now see the complexities nations may face without it.

i would be adequately able to support the proposal if the definition of child was reinstated. thank you.

Wachichi

I was going to bring this up before the proposal was submitted. I was going to suggest "Universal Primary Education", but it's essentially the same thing. Speaking of submission, though, I'm hoping that we're nearing that point. A certain proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=577572) is currently being debated, -- a proposal that I'm sure Ms. Benson would like to see -- and could considerably compromise this proposal. That, and the fact that the number of approvals needed to reach quorum is incredibly low (I wonder how long that'll last).

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

i was told about this proposal by the ambassador herself. she started the proposal because she felt (like several others who complained to me) that you, ambassador, were completely ignorant when it comes to compromise. they believe you are impossible to work with and your government needs to reassess your diplomatic qualifications. that is why she started that proposal. and because of the bickering, we've lost many good minds in the forums, minds that i have worked with for a long time. those minds won't be participating in the debate anymore, and our proposal will suffer for it.

in any case, that proposal, won't completely oppose our bill. it will only oppose it when it comes to private schooling. it will ban any proposal from creating laws that will basically tell private schools what they can teach other than math, literature, and something else. not that much of a problem, but if she passes it now or later, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Wachichi :D

i was told about this proposal by the ambassador herself. she started the proposal because she felt (like several others who complained to me) that you, ambassador, were completely ignorant when it comes to compromise. they believe you are impossible to work with and your government needs to reassess your diplomatic qualifications.If she says so. I think, and I'm going go ahead and say that at least one other delegation here would think, that I've compromised quite a lot. It was the incessant name-calling that created problems, not the thought that I'm somehow not malleable. I'd rather not bring this up again, though.

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