Draft: Primary Education Act [Archive] - Page 2

Glen-Rhodes

27-12-2008, 18:27

As far as a title goes, I would avoid the word 'Universal'. For one (mildly snarkily) given it doesn't address private education, it's not universal. For two (less snarkily) it will inspire dread among the 'they're coming to get our children' lobby. 'Promotion of Primary Education', or 'Primary Education Act', or 'WA Basic Education Act'? I don't really mind.Hm. I'm assuming you missed part of the debate. The proposal has affected private education since this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14326977&postcount=217) revision. However, nobody really wants to play with that lobby. Primary Education Act seems fine by me.

OBSERVING 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’ as 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) DECLARE that 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.

It seems that the only thing left to discuss is a proper definition, or lack thereof, of 'child'. Currently, Ms. Benson and Ms. Coch think that the old definition wasn't great, and the Ambassador of Wachichi wants to reinstate it.

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

Charlotte Ryberg

27-12-2008, 18:39

A child could be defined as "older than a teenager, way younger than the maturity age but older than a toddler". Only if could be easier to specify an age in the NS world.

Quintessence of Dust

27-12-2008, 20:20

Hm. I'm assuming you missed part of the debate. The proposal has affected private education since this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14326977&postcount=217) revision. However, nobody really wants to play with that lobby. Primary Education Act seems fine by me.
Fair enough, and sorry for missing that. It just seems that given II specifies they have a right to the education 'free of cost', if parents opt to pay for it they are essentially buying themselves out of the requirement that it 'meets with WA standards'.
It seems that the only thing left to discuss is a proper definition, or lack thereof, of 'child'. Currently, Ms. Benson and Ms. Coch think that the old definition wasn't great, and the Ambassador of Wachichi wants to reinstate it.
My personal preference would be not to use a definition at all, or only something very generic such as 'a pre-pubescent person'. However, I'm not sure it is really my battle. The nations that will have problems with a definition of child are those populated by elfs and orcs and toasters. Ours are not, and we know what kids look like.

-- Samantha Benson

OOC: I have no problem with people who enjoy RPing non-human characters. I'm just not interested in it myself. And so, I don't think it'd be particularly fitting for my characters to devote great interest to it.

Wachichi

27-12-2008, 23:28

on the issue of defining child,

if the proposed definition of child were something that Ms. Benson has mentioned such as "a pre-puescent person". i would gladly agree, because it would allow my nation to teach sex ed at 11-12 years of age. i have no objection to that. i would have to see the actual proposed definition. and Ms. Benson, i know you really want my people to be orcs and what not, but they are human non the less. sorry.

if it were defined in the old definition, i would accept, and/or if it were defined in the way Ms. Benson has proposed, i would also be in agreement. either way works for me. the only reason i want the definition re-instated after i worked to have it removed is because of the mandate on sex education to children. so it is therefore, important to define WHAT a child really is for the sake of the proposal and for clarities' sake.

thank you.

Wachichi

Glen-Rhodes

28-12-2008, 00:53

Fair enough, and sorry for missing that. It just seems that given II specifies they have a right to the education 'free of cost', if parents opt to pay for it they are essentially buying themselves out of the requirement that it 'meets with WA standards'.

-- Samantha BensonPerhaps I could write 'free of undue cost', then?

on the issue of defining child,

if the proposed definition of child were something that Ms. Benson has mentioned such as "a pre-puescent person". i would gladly agree, because it would allow my nation to teach sex ed at 11-12 years of age.

...

WachichiI don't see what all the fuss is about, really. Whether or not 'a pre-pubescent person' is included as a definition of child, the government of Wachichi could still teach sex education at 11-12 years of age. Nowhere does the proposal say that the required courses must be taught all at once. They simply have to be taught sometime during primary education.

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

Quintessence of Dust

28-12-2008, 02:59

Perhaps I could write 'free of undue cost', then?
Well no, I certainly agree it should be 'free of cost'. I was just musing, really.

-- Samantha Benson

Glen-Rhodes

28-12-2008, 05:33

Well no, I certainly agree it should be 'free of cost'. I was just musing, really.

-- Samantha BensonVery well. I admire those not afraid to think out loud.

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

Gobbannium

28-12-2008, 14:26

Hm. I'm assuming you missed part of the debate. The proposal has affected private education since this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14326977&postcount=217) revision. However, nobody really wants to play with that lobby. Primary Education Act seems fine by me.

(OOC: this is one reason why having just the one draft in the original post, and updating that with appropriate commentary in the thread, is a common way of drafting. You know where to find the current draft at all times!)

It seems that the only thing left to discuss is a proper definition, or lack thereof, of 'child'. Currently, Ms. Benson and Ms. Coch think that the old definition wasn't great, and the Ambassador of Wachichi wants to reinstate it.
I'll repeat: I think what you need to do is fix the definition of primary education instead. What you currently have covers both primary and secondary education in Gobbannium (and is therefore a bit, well, flimsy). I'm pretty sure that there are nations out there who regard university education as mandatory, but I can't recall any individuals.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Wachichi

28-12-2008, 17:29

I don't see what all the fuss is about, really. Whether or not 'a pre-pubescent person' is included as a definition of child, the government of Wachichi could still teach sex education at 11-12 years of age. Nowhere does the proposal say that the required courses must be taught all at once. They simply have to be taught sometime during primary education.

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

incorrect ambassador. with the resolution as it is, it would mandate that my nation, along with many others, to teach, during primary education, which for my nation is kindergarten to 7th grade about sex, or whatever sex ed would include. if however, we included the old definition, or the definition along the lines of what Ms. Benson has mentioned, it would allow my nation to teach sex ed to students who are 12 years or older. just the age i would like to teach my students about sex.

that is the problem.

also, if you won't include a definition of child, then i would advise altering the primary ed definition. as defined now, primary education (without the definition of a child) just means a series of classes a child (undefined) must attend. such a definition (without a child defined) allows nations to mandate all kinds of education, such as university,because their is no clarity as to what a "child" actually is. it allows nations to define a child as 18 years or younger. 30 years or younger...etc.

i hope you see what i mean. redefine child, or primary education. it would make everything my simpler if you just re-instated the old definition or Ms. Benson's definition.

Wachichi

Rutianas

28-12-2008, 19:27

I've been informed by my government that one of our religious groups has heard about this proposal and is terribly concerned, rightly so. They have sectioned themselves off from us because we are technologically and scientifically advanced. This group has a directive from their deity to shun all technology and science. If they are required to teach science, they would like to know exactly what it is that they should do since they are expressly forbidden by their religion to do so.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Wachichi

28-12-2008, 22:31

Rutianas

28-12-2008, 22:59

ambassador from Rutianas,

i have found another fact in this extremely complicated piece of legislation. if your government needs to tell that religious group something about how they will do so, then tell them this.

this proposal in no way limits or restricts their religious beliefs. science, under this resolution is defined as:

"iv) science as the effort to discover, and increase understanding of how the natural world works, through observation and experimentation"

so, unless that religious group has religious beliefs that shuns the effort to discover and increase understanding, they should be good. this resolution, mandates that they teach science, as defined above and in the resolution. so in no way is this limiting their religious beliefs.

Wachichi

But it is still science. This group cannot, by their religious beliefs, teach science related classes.

Furthermore, the current resolution at vote, Freedom of Expression, contains this passage:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Should this resolution pass, we feel it would be going against this resolution to tell our religious group that they must have science classes.

So, you tell me, exactly why should they be mandated to teach science classes if their religion expressly forbids them from having science classes in their schools, and why we should tell them they must do it if it would go against the current resolution at vote should it pass?

Wachichi

29-12-2008, 01:49

ambassador,

what is science??? according to this resolution. (and there is no other definition to oppose it) science is:

"iv) science as the effort to discover, and increase understanding of how the natural world works, through observation and experimentation"

so based on what you said. their religion teaches them to NOT teach science. so in other words, their religion teaches to NOT teach about "the effort to discover, and increase understanding"? highly unlikely. and in any case, because we defined science as such, it allows that religous group to teach about science (as defined) but not necessarily about contravertial things like evolution...etc.

Wachichi

Glen-Rhodes

29-12-2008, 02:37

I'll repeat: I think what you need to do is fix the definition of primary education instead. What you currently have covers both primary and secondary education in Gobbannium (and is therefore a bit, well, flimsy). I'm pretty sure that there are nations out there who regard university education as mandatory, but I can't recall any individuals.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent UndersecretaryWhy does it need fixing, just because it covers more than what a certain nation usually covers? I'd rather just include a definition of child, which is far more stable. Certainly that's no major task, unless the bureaucracy rivals that of the World Assembly; in which case, I'd suggest a complete overhaul of the government. That level of bureaucracy is just plain unhealthy.

Should this resolution pass, we feel it would be going against this resolution to tell our religious group that they must have science classes.How so? I see no fear-mongering, nor any reprisal stemming from mandating that schools teach science.

So, you tell me, exactly why should they be mandated to teach science classes if their religion expressly forbids them from having science classes in their schools, and why we should tell them they must do it if it would go against the current resolution at vote should it pass?For one, nobody here is going to write Ruitianas curriculum. That's what educators are for; hire some if you need them. The current resolution, Freedom of Expression, does not protect any institution from being told that they have to teach science. These anti-science institutions are free to show their dislike for science, but freedom of expression doesn't give them the right to deny anybody a proper education, as defined by law. Nor does it give anybody the right to not follow the law.

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

Gobbannium

29-12-2008, 11:46

Why does it need fixing, just because it covers more than what a certain nation usually covers?
A certain nation, if it was just an odd exceptional case, wouldn't be cause for fixing. However, much as I'd love to believe that Gobbannium's education system is streets ahead of everyone else, I find it a bit hard to believe that most other nations allow children to leave school at age 10.

I'd rather just include a definition of child, which is far more stable.
I think you've proved several times now that that simply isn't true. The only definition you've come up with that's even marginally acceptable is decidedly unnatural.

Glen-Rhodes

29-12-2008, 19:38

A certain nation, if it was just an odd exceptional case, wouldn't be cause for fixing. However, much as I'd love to believe that Gobbannium's education system is streets ahead of everyone else, I find it a bit hard to believe that most other nations allow children to leave school at age 10.Then why haven't 'most other nations' complained about such? The definition of primary education is perfectly acceptable. Would you rather it be "that period of time after learning how to wipe yourself, but before going to junior high school"? I extended leniency to the Nat-Sovs by removing the 'decidedly unnatural' definition of child, and allowing them to decide in what age bracket primary education is acceptable. Now, if the definition of primary education is somehow unacceptable in its most basic form, then I have no other choice but to reinstate the definition of child. As I said, a definition of child is far more stable than defining arbitrary time schedules in a definition of primary education. Either way, if the definition of primary education were to be more developed, then 'child' would be essentially defined anyways.

Now, I can go about this one of two ways. I can use fractions, like I did with the original definition. Using fractions is, in my opinion, the better way to define the time that a child attends primary school. Or, I can use descriptive language, such as 'prepubescent'. Using descriptive terms is fine when describing the upper age limit for primary education, but becomes troublesome when describing the lower age limit.

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

Wachichi

29-12-2008, 20:21

ambassador,

i agree with you. re-instating the child definition would greatly improve things. we would have to see BOTH definitions, both the descriptive and fractional. that way we can all decide on which is much better.

To the ambassador of Gobbannium,

including the definition of child, would regulate the definition of primary education because it's definition includes the word "child". also, this resolution only deals with primary education, so nations wouldn't be forced to let their students leave school after primary education. a higher education proposal would deal with the other aspect of education.

Wachichi.

after showing us the two definitions ambassador, and once we decide on which should be instated in the proposal, i think it would be best to re-post the newest version of the proposal. thank you

Gobbannium

30-12-2008, 00:32

To the ambassador of Gobbannium,

including the definition of child, would regulate the definition of primary education because it's definition includes the word "child". also, this resolution only deals with primary education, so nations wouldn't be forced to let their students leave school after primary education. a higher education proposal would deal with the other aspect of education.

It would, however, look unnatural, which is a pretty good indication that it is unnatural. The reason is that the definition of "primary education" as it stands is in fact the definition of "compulsory education", or "primary and secondary education combined" if you prefer. Rather than trying to figure out what primary education actually is, you're proposing to patch it by adding an arbitrary calculated figure that will be somewhere near the right age for the way Gobbannium (and presumably Wachichi and Glen Rhodes) has its education system set up. That's... well, mildly irksome for us, to be honest, since it won't be quite right, but it is based on a false premise, and that's just asking for trouble.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary,
wondering when the Ambassador will deal with the idiots for her.

Glen-Rhodes

30-12-2008, 01:06

It would, however, look unnatural, which is a pretty good indication that it is unnatural. The reason is that the definition of "primary education" as it stands is in fact the definition of "compulsory education", or "primary and secondary education combined" if you prefer. Rather than trying to figure out what primary education actually is, you're proposing to patch it by adding an arbitrary calculated figure that will be somewhere near the right age for the way Gobbannium (and presumably Wachichi and Glen Rhodes) has its education system set up. That's... well, mildly irksome for us, to be honest, since it won't be quite right, but it is based on a false premise, and that's just asking for trouble.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary,
wondering when the Ambassador will deal with the idiots for her.
If I were to not sleep until I wrote a definition that satisfies the thousands of nations in the World Assembly, I would be a very, very tired man.

The definition of primary education is simply the the first stage of a child's compulsory education, after whatever comes before, and before whatever comes after. Any specifics are added on by governments, to create the system that they believe is best.

Given that the definition of primary education is dependent on the definition of child, one might posit that a definition of child should probably exist. For that definition, I'm leaning towards using fractions, simply because biology is not universal, and some... species... might not go through puberty early on in life, if at all. The idea that because it doesn't look right, it must be 'unnatural', is a ridiculous idea. That dinner coming from the microwave across the room doesn't look right, but that doesn't mean I didn't cook it the night before, and instead it spawned from some gelatinous pile of toxic sludge.

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

Wachichi

30-12-2008, 03:55

alright, ambassadors,

i propose this. including the definition as child (fractional) and also changing up the definition of primary education. Based on what i know, the ambassador of Glen-Rhodes hasn't had to alter the definition from the start. but i might be wrong.

so currently, primary education is defined as:

"as the series of educational courses a child must attend, until their WA member nation no longer requires."

personally, i don't want to bring this up again, however, the use of the word "must" does ,as the ambassador of Gobbannium, imply that primary education is "complusory education". what if parents don't want their kids to go to school? what if they want to educate their own children, away from the "educational system"?

i personally would change that word to "will" or "should". preferable "will" implying that the students will go to school. having the word must, is a mandate without any punch. what will happen if a student doesn't take the courses? will they be punished? i know this is too much detail to worry about but i agree that primary education should be changed, though the word 'child' should be left in it.

so going through the list, we would have to see the definition of child, and a small altercation to the definition of primary education.

Wachichi

Subistratica

30-12-2008, 05:46

so going through the list, we would have to see the definition of child...

[OOC: About time I decided to jump in and contribute...]

Would it be okay to just say "child as defined under national law" or somesuch similar phrase?

Harmonious Treefolk

30-12-2008, 05:54

[OOC: About time I decided to jump in and contribute...]

Would it be okay to just say "child as defined under national law" or somesuch similar phrase?

That is the best idea I have heard all day. Why bother trying to determine an exact formula for deciding what exactly is and is not a child? Let the individual nations make that choice; after all, the individual states will also be enforcing the resolution anyway.

Gobbannium

30-12-2008, 14:48

Would it be okay to just say "child as defined under national law" or somesuch similar phrase?
We hate to sound awkward, but what about those nations who don't define "child" under national law? Gobbannium doesn't have a meaningful Age of Majority except as a trivial stand-alone term to satisfy WAR #4, prefering instead to marry ages at which appropriate physiological, psychological and social maturation have been achieved to the relevant laws. Whilst we find this convenient and effective for many purposes, it does leave us with no legal catch-all definition for a child.

Harmonious Treefolk

30-12-2008, 14:56

We hate to sound awkward, but what about those nations who don't define "child" under national law? Gobbannium doesn't have a meaningful Age of Majority except as a trivial stand-alone term to satisfy WAR #4, prefering instead to marry ages at which appropriate physiological, psychological and social maturation have been achieved to the relevant laws. Whilst we find this convenient and effective for many purposes, it does leave us with no legal catch-all definition for a child.

Ugh, that could get messy, couldn't it? Perhaps for the purpose of this resolution nations such as yours could marry yet another appropriate age to this resolution. I see no reason that this would violate the spirit or terms of the resolution.

Bears Armed

30-12-2008, 15:13

We hate to sound awkward, but what about those nations who don't define "child" under national law? Gobbannium doesn't have a meaningful Age of Majority except as a trivial stand-alone term to satisfy WAR #4, prefering instead to marry ages at which appropriate physiological, psychological and social maturation have been achieved to the relevant laws. Whilst we find this convenient and effective for many purposes, it does leave us with no legal catch-all definition for a child.
Agreed, we have similar rules in most of the Clan-lands back home... and this is yet another matter that falls outside of the national government's jurisdiction.

Gobbannium

30-12-2008, 15:27

Ugh, that could get messy, couldn't it? Perhaps for the purpose of this resolution nations such as yours could marry yet another appropriate age to this resolution. I see no reason that this would violate the spirit or terms of the resolution.
The difficulty with that, honoured ambassador, is that nations intent upon violating the spirit of the act would be easily able to do so by setting a suitably implausible age. Indeed this is precisely the trick that Gobbannium uses with respect to the Age of Majority by setting it to zero, with the difference that we then use higher ages in individual laws that we are confident Dourian representatives would find wholly within the spirit of their resolution.

The business of definitions is a tricky one, which explains why many resolutions are leery of their deployment. Unfortunately we must concur that "primary education" is not a sufficiently universal term that its definition can be taken as read. The ambassadors of Wachichi and Glen-Rhodes have a tricky task on their hands, and we do not envy them.

Harmonious Treefolk

30-12-2008, 15:57

The difficulty with that, honoured ambassador, is that nations intent upon violating the spirit of the act would be easily able to do so by setting a suitably implausible age. Indeed this is precisely the trick that Gobbannium uses with respect to the Age of Majority by setting it to zero, with the difference that we then use higher ages in individual laws that we are confident Dourian representatives would find wholly within the spirit of their resolution.

It is quite a tricky business. Without a better definition of "child" the resolution has no teeth; however individuals in different nations mature at different rates and the level of maturity necessary to be an adult varies from nation to nation as well.

There have been several suggestions on methods of definition. Here are some of those methods; I encourage all of my fellow ambassadors to throw in any other method that could be considered. Perhaps we can come up with a working idea.

1) Strict Age-Limit -- "All persons under the age of ** are to be considered children under the resolution"
*the simplest method--set an age and you are done--but flawed in that different nations have different maturation speeds and life expectancies, etc.

2) Fractional Age-Limit -- "All persons under */*th of the average life expectancy of the member nation are considered children under the resolution"
*does make some effort to account for life expectancy differences, but does not really compensate for different maturation levels; any fraction will inherently be too high for some nations and too low for others

3) National Age-of-Majority -- "For the purposes of the resolution, children are defined as such by individual nation's law"
*about as useful as having no definition at all--this takes the teeth out of the resolution. It may also make the resolution more palatable for some

4) Adult-Factor Rubrik -- "Persons who do not meet all of these criteria are considered children under the resolution" followed by some criteria regarding adult rights
*this method would take into account the factors we associate with adulthood--rights, specifically. But good luck determining which rights go on the rubrick! You could almost make an entire resolution just for this.

Any other methods we could use?

Wachichi

30-12-2008, 18:23

what we were reffering to was the fractional definition of child. much like number2 ambassador. except the old definition was something like: 1/3 to 2/3 of the average life of a person in that nation.. or something of the sorts. personally i would favor that definition because it allows nations a little flexibility on the issue. i can't however, support method 3. it allows for horrendous corruption in all kinds of nations. something i can't let happen.

as for the definition of primary education,

it should be along the lines of, "a set of educational courses a CHILD should attend." by including a definition of child, we can ensure that primary education would only include children and those under that definition, while not making primary education compulsury as the current definition does.

Wachichi

Gobbannium

31-12-2008, 00:37

Wachichi

31-12-2008, 01:19

hmmm....

okay, so your not comfortable with a primary education definition that bends around the definition of child. can the ambassador give us a definition of primary education deemed acceptable by that nation to work toward a better definition. if not, then I, as a diplomat, can't do much more. I at least need a basic idea of what the prefered definition would follow. like a guideline of the sorts in order to get a better understanding of the ambassador's idea of the definition of 'primary education'.

thank you.

Wachichi

Glen-Rhodes

31-12-2008, 02:49

We find ourselves somewhat of the opinion that the process that the Ambassador of Wachichi has advanced is, as our undersecretary has recently taken to saying, "bass-ackwards." If we define primary education purely in terms of the age of those undergoing it, we have failed to put our collective finger on its purpose. Having done that, how can we reasonably expect any standards we set to be remotely applicable to its improvement?

The purpose of primary education is spelled out in Article III. The purpose would be to teach those things that have been mandated. In other words, the entire resolution works toward defining primary education.

I've looked over the various responses, and have found that I still prefer a fractional age limit. An "adult-factor rubric" is an interesting idea, if there were a completely universal right that only adults had.

I do have a question, though. If a passed resolution defines a term, then is that term applicable across the board, or does it just apply to that single resolution? For instance, the Child Protection Act defines child as "being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation". The Restrictions on Child Labor act also defines 'minor' this way. It's been a question I have always pondered, but haven't found any precedence to suggest a yes or a no.

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

Wachichi

31-12-2008, 04:13

perhaps we should bring it up to a moderator ambasador, i'll try to ask one asap and let you know.

Wachichi

Harmonious Treefolk

31-12-2008, 04:41

I do have a question, though. If a passed resolution defines a term, then is that term applicable across the board, or does it just apply to that single resolution? For instance, the Child Protection Act defines child as "being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation". The Restrictions on Child Labor act also defines 'minor' this way. It's been a question I have always pondered, but haven't found any precedence to suggest a yes or a no.

The Theocracy of Harmonious Treefolk has not had a representative to the World Assembly for very long, but it appears to us that what is defined in one resolution is not necessarily defined in all other resolutions. Resolutions live and die independently of one another, and as such one resolution must not be used to define major terms in another resolution.

However, this does not prevent us from borrowing the definition from one resolution into another.

Bears Armed

31-12-2008, 13:04

Glen-Rhodes

31-12-2008, 19:42

If a resolution defines a term with the rider "for the purpose of this resolution" then the definition only applies for the purpose of that specific resolution.
If a resolution defines a term without such a rider, however, that definition applies in the case of all [relevant] later resolutions too... unless & until the one containing the definition gets repealed.

I see. How relevant is "relevant"? Would the definition of child (since it has no rider) found in the Child Protection Act apply only to resolutions involved in child safety, or to all resolutions involving the 'rights' of children? Unless I'm mistaking your use of "relevant".

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

OOC: I've posted about this in the Moderation forum.

Bears Armed

31-12-2008, 19:57

I see. How relevant is "relevant"? Would the definition of child (since it has no rider) found in the Child Protection Act apply only to resolutions involved in child safety, or to all resolutions involving the 'rights' of children? Unless I'm mistaking your use of "relevant".

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

OOC: I've posted about this in the Moderation forum.
OOC: I'd take it as applying to all subsequent resolutions for which defining 'child' matters: After all, the definition has the force of international law, and trying to introduce a contradictory one later on would seem to fall under the 'no amendments' rule...

Wachichi

31-12-2008, 20:09

with all due respect ambassador from Bears Armed,

your wrong. i asked a NS moderator about the issue. i telegrammed him immediately after my last post with the question and this was his response:

"When the World Assembly defines a term it generally only applies to that resolution; some specifically say "for purposes of this resolution," like the one at vote, but even if it doesn't specify, there's no legal way the definition can be applied to other resolutions."

so, to all who are listening, definitions, whether using the 'riders' as they are called, or not, generally only apply to that one resolution and are not universal. even if they are intended to be. it also has to do with the Card thing. each resolution is reliant upon itself and no other.

Wachichi

Glen-Rhodes

31-12-2008, 22:33

I'm going with the learned counsel from Bears Armed, Cobdenia and Yelda, on this basis: once the WA votes in favour of a proposal, the proposal applies in its entirety unless/until the WA changes its collective mind.

Every last carefully scrutinised syllable of it, including definitions. Which is why proposals should be carefully scrutinised before they become law. Which is why a drafting thread is a Number One Good Idea.

It seems that we've gotten ourselves in to quite the predicament. Two opposing positions from the moderators. Would the Ambassador of Wachichi be so kind as to say who he contacted? Until then, Ardchoille's decision is the only official one.

The simplest way to bypass this problem seems to be to use a synonym of 'child', since it's already been indiscriminately defined. Perhaps juvenile, youth...

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

Ardchoille

01-01-2009, 01:22

There are no opposing positions from moderators. Omigodtheykilledkenny is the person whom Wachichi asked, and he's not a mod (he's too smart to get caught like that).

Nor is there opposition, since I find his argument convincing, but at the moment I'm at work and finding the last argument I heard convincing, no matter what it is.

As this is still drafting, I can't see that it's urgent, so hang on until a few more mods have a look at it and we can all kick it around a bit.

Wachichi

01-01-2009, 01:54

i apologize. i thought Omigodtheykilledkenny was a moderator mostly because he kept track of resolutions, proposed ones on the forum..etc.

i apologize for that. however,

ambasasdor of Ardchoille,

what if that specific resolution is repelled? and this resolution would be reliant upon that resolution for it's definition? i thought that was against the rules, to have one proposal reliant on another. something about a deck of cards?

i mean, what is the definition of child in the other resolution? we could mold our definition around it, in order to accomodate our resolution, but also, it won't stray too far from the original definition.

Wachichi

Urgench

01-01-2009, 04:02

O.O.C. I should probably say that since I was quite involved in the writing of the Child Protection Act , I don't think that the definition of a child contained in it was meant to be universal.

I think the definition attempted to define what age of child should expect to be protected by the resolution's provisions, nothing more and nothing less.

Mind you if other resolutions want to use the same definition I can't see why they shouldn't.

Ardchoille

01-01-2009, 06:26

i
what if that specific resolution is repelled? and this resolution would be reliant upon that resolution for it's definition? i thought that was against the rules, to have one proposal reliant on another. something about a deck of cards?

You're probably thinking of House of Cards (HoC) violations. Yes, that was the essence of Kenny's argument, and, as I said, I found it convincing. I also find convincing a number of opposing points that other players have raised in Moderation. I have some hope that Hack came up with a Gordian-knot-cutting line about definitions in one of the early UN debates on the rights of sapients.

So I am going to see if I can find that, talk to Hack, Fris and the other mods and see if they've got some acceptable solution. Don't expect that to happen overnight.

Wachichi

01-01-2009, 07:56

i agree. My partner and I can simply say for the purposes of the resolution (as the original definition stated). therefore that definition would be limited to the resolution (for the purpose of the resolution) however, couldn't we just say, something like "We recognize other definitions already defined in previous and future resolutions?" that way we don't completely dismiss the old definition?

or maybe we should just build our definition AROUND the older definition. that way their are similar, but it would still fit our own resolution for education?

what is the old definition word for word?

Ambassador from Glen-Rhodes, we still haven't established a definition for child? are we using the old?

all we need to do, is show the definition in the Child act, and our own definition. we'll then combine them to make it more similar and yet special for this resolution.

Wachichi

Snefaldia

01-01-2009, 19:31

To complicate things a bit- there was a discussion during the UN days that established resolutions might reference prior resolutions/definitions, provided it's in the form of something like "RECALLING the efforts of resolution#345" or something like that. Hack or Fris stated that the House of Cards applied to resolutions that built off each other- but not to resolutions that simply "RECALLED" or "REMEMBERED" previous legislative efforts. The basis of HoC, as I understood it, is that resolutions must be able to stand alone, but are allowed to reference prior legislation as long as the reference is not vital/operative to the effectiveness of the bill.

My suggestion to avoid a situation like this is to actually use the definitions from prior resolutions, and then add riders like "and for the purposes of this resolution, X." It will be easier to maintain consistency of legislative definition.

Glen-Rhodes

01-01-2009, 20:38

Ambassador from Glen-Rhodes, we still haven't established a definition for child? are we using the old?

WachichiShould definitions only apply to the resolutions they're written in, then I will heavily consider reinstating the old definition. However, I will fix the citizenship loophole beforehand.

Should definitions be universally binding, then perhaps my previous suggestion of using synonyms could suffice.

To complicate things a bit- there was a discussion during the UN days that established resolutions might reference prior resolutions/definitions, provided it's in the form of something like "RECALLING the efforts of resolution#345" or something like that. Hack or Fris stated that the House of Cards applied to resolutions that built off each other- but not to resolutions that simply "RECALLED" or "REMEMBERED" previous legislative efforts. The basis of HoC, as I understood it, is that resolutions must be able to stand alone, but are allowed to reference prior legislation as long as the reference is not vital/operative to the effectiveness of the bill.

My suggestion to avoid a situation like this is to actually use the definitions from prior resolutions, and then add riders like "and for the purposes of this resolution, X." It will be easier to maintain consistency of legislative definition.
I think that the Rules for WA Proposals needs to be amended, to address definitions. I'm holding my breath for the final decision on the topic, but it would definitely help future resolution-writers if a somewhat extensive guide to definitions is written, much like the "Why Amendments Are Illegal" guide Frisbeeteria wrote.

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

Wachichi

02-01-2009, 18:56

so i guess we wait, until my partner's other post comes up with an idea. i'll be sure to take part in that one and we'll update everyone soon

Wachichi

Glen-Rhodes

03-01-2009, 18:21

so i guess we wait, until my partner's other post comes up with an idea. i'll be sure to take part in that one and we'll update everyone soon

Wachichi

We do not have to wait, necessarily. As I said, we could bypass any concern by using a different word; I prefer juvenile. Though, it looks and sounds admittedly odd... We could use 'young person', or any number of synonyms.

OBSERVING 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 the right to education,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE the following, solely for the purpose of this resolution:
a) '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.
b) ‘primary education’ as the series of educational courses a juvenile must attend, until their WA member nation no longer requires.
c) 'juvenile' as a person between 1/3 and 2/3 the age of majority of their nation.

II) MANDATE that every juvenile shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the juveniles 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 juvenile'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 primary education readily available to people 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) DECLARE that 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

New Illuve

03-01-2009, 22:39

OOC: Forgive me if my points below have already been well discussed; I haven't read through all 20 pages to get to the nitty-griity. Just tell me, please.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve is pleased to find this Proposal being discussed. She would like to make the following comments:

1. Assuming a standard age of maturity of 18, which would probably be a norm in most nations, this Proposal will only deal with the education of 6 to 12 year olds. This upper age seems to the Holy Empire to be low, and would consider this to be inadequate to prepare a juvenile sufficiently to be a full participant in society.

2. The Holy Empire wonders if it is necessary to define the various subjects as is done in Article IIIb. Furthermore, She wonders if (given the assumed ages above) the minimums given for sex education may be beyond most juveniles. At those ages most will be at the level of "<insert opposite sex> are icky!" and to deal with the consequences of puberty or the hormonal changes involved in pregnancy will be problematic. It is Her fear that the consequences will have to be so generalized as to be essentially meaningless or will be beyond the ability of the juveniles to appreciate and understand.

3. Is it the intention that Article V only holds within the context of education, or is a new human right being created that holds in all areas of a person's life?

If the former then one can wonder if juveniles are sufficiently developed, both mentally and intellectually, to be able to use this right - or even if it would be wise to grant them this right at this stage. It should be sufficient to encourage critical thinking skills at these ages, or mandate the teaching of same.

If the latter then there are significant problems that can be foreseen. For example: one would have the right to critically examine all problems and solutions - but if those problems and solutions were to involve state secrets for which one does not hold the necessary security clearance? Or involves information that is protected by confidentiality; for example as defined in the Patient's Rights Act Article VI? If this is a new universal right, then it needs to be more fully developed.

And this Proposal shall be doing two things at once.

Submitted for your contemplation.

Glen-Rhodes

03-01-2009, 23:55

1. Assuming a standard age of maturity of 18, which would probably be a norm in most nations, this Proposal will only deal with the education of 6 to 12 year olds. This upper age seems to the Holy Empire to be low, and would consider this to be inadequate to prepare a juvenile sufficiently to be a full participant in society.Keep in mind, Ambassador Gunnlæif, that this proposal only seeks to mandate primary education. Primary education is generally the first of numerous series of educational courses, though the name may change from nation to nation.

2. The Holy Empire wonders if it is necessary to define the various subjects as is done in Article IIIb. Furthermore, She wonders if (given the assumed ages above) the minimums given for sex education may be beyond most juveniles. At those ages most will be at the level of "<insert opposite sex> are icky!" and to deal with the consequences of puberty or the hormonal changes involved in pregnancy will be problematic. It is Her fear that the consequences will have to be so generalized as to be essentially meaningless or will be beyond the ability of the juveniles to appreciate and understand.The definitions are necessary, yes. As for sex education, there was a large debate over it, that you have missed. I believe the records are still held. (OOC: Go back a few pages.)

3. Is it the intention that Article V only holds within the context of education, or is a new human right being created that holds in all areas of a person's life?

...

If the latter then there are significant problems that can be foreseen. For example: one would have the right to critically examine all problems and solutions - but if those problems and solutions were to involve state secrets for which one does not hold the necessary security clearance? Or involves information that is protected by confidentiality; for example as defined in the Patient's Rights Act Article VI? If this is a new universal right, then it needs to be more fully developed.The intention of Article V is, indeed, to establish a new unalienable right. Though, I have been contemplating, if it is a better option, to branch Article V in to it's own resolution. As such, the complex issue of protecting national and international security, while not limiting a person's right to stand up and defy their government, could be better addressed.

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

New Illuve

04-01-2009, 00:32

OOC: is a resolution allowed to create two seperate and essentially unrelated things? Meaning mandating primary education and creating a new human right? I thought that that wasn't possible within the rules.

IC: As the Proposal is currently written, Article V would be sufficient for the Holy Empire to vocally oppose this, despite Her desire to see a minimum level of education provided to all. The unqualified use of "all" with regards to individuals as well as to problems would be unacceptable to many nations, for justifiable reasons.

She concurrs with the thinking of Dr. Castro that branching this off to a new Proposal would be a better option. Encouraging or mandating critical thinking skills in the Proposal now in debate would, in Her opinion, allow for the intent without introducing unnecessary issues and problems.

Glen-Rhodes

04-01-2009, 01:40

OOC: is a resolution allowed to create two seperate and essentially unrelated things? Meaning mandating primary education and creating a new human right? I thought that that wasn't possible within the rules.OOC: It's not against the rules, but it's not good practice. If you're drafting a resolution to ban deforestation, then you probably shouldn't include a clause about standard-compliant logging machinery; while the two ideas would go in the same category, they don't aim to complete the same task. Establishing a right of independent thought does, however, substantially overlap the values and purposes of promoting education, so it doesn't constitute any kind of de facto violation.

She concurrs with the thinking of Dr. Castro that branching this off to a new Proposal would be a better option. Encouraging or mandating critical thinking skills in the Proposal now in debate would, in Her opinion, allow for the intent without introducing unnecessary issues and problems.

Perhaps a new draft resolution will find its way to the debate floor, then.

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

Wachichi

04-01-2009, 03:16

partner,

if we were to remove the human right being provided that pages and weeks of constant debate will mean nothing. though this isn't a reason to keep it, i guess for the sake of the right, it should be, though i would prefer it be left inside, and if you please, you could draft a resolution on the issue seperately.

@ the ambassador from New Illuve

if you don't want to read all the debate, this is basically the debate over the sex ed in a little paragraph:

I for one opposed it being mandatory, however,afters some changes to the resolution, Juvenile (or child) is now defined as 1/3 to 2/3 of a person's life or something like that. giving governments like mine, the chance to provide sex ed at the ages of 11-15 or even more based on your countries life expectancy and how that ratio fits in to your individual state.
also, by defining sex ed as defined in the resolution, a nation doesn't have to teach about sex itself, but can teach about anatomy ..etc giving nations more options when it comes to the mandatory sex ed.

Wachichi

Wachichi

05-01-2009, 01:58

Gobbannium

05-01-2009, 02:59

The purpose of primary education is spelled out in Article III. The purpose would be to teach those things that have been mandated. In other words, the entire resolution works toward defining primary education.

Then we must opine that the entire resolution is a failure, since it in no way defines the purpose of primary education in a non-circular manner.

Dagnus Reardinius

05-01-2009, 08:31

b) ‘primary education’ as the series of educational courses a juvenile must attend, until their WA member nation no longer requires.
Contradicts the purpose of this bill. Suppose the nation does not require it at all.

c) 'juvenile' as a person between 1/3 and 2/3 the age of majority of their nation.
Problematic. What if there is no majority? Indeed, a nation should not have a majority of an age group. Imagine, if you will, having over 50% of a nation being of a particular age. Not even age group. Furthermore, setting the age of a juvenile relative to a shifting age standard means a shifting juvenile age, making things nastily problematic indeed.

II) MANDATE that every juvenile shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA standards, free of direct cost to the juveniles and their parents or guardians.
Contradicts I.b.

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 juvenile's individual education plan or intellectual development.
So now the WA is defining our curriculum as well? This is not acceptable to the Dominion.

VII) MANDATE that all WA member nations make primary education readily available to people of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of standard-level brain activity.
What is 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.
It is unreasonable for one to assume that there can even be an international standard of education. The cultures and needs of people differ widely. Some may be raised in warlike cultures, while others may have to farm with their family so as to not starve. It would be darkly amusing, indeed, were a child to starve because the WA demanded that he attend a school.

In conclusion, this bill is sharply divergent from the philosophies of the Dominion, where little is directed by the government. Thus, even if this proposal were pristine, we would object to the spirit of the letter and the philosophies that formed it, as well as to what it would accomplish concretely.

The Dominion

Glen-Rhodes

05-01-2009, 21:28

i hope my partner has not forgotten of this proposal because he has been pre-occupied with his other pieces of legislation. i have issues several forums at the same time and could handle the bulk of them hopefully he could too.

Wachichi

There's no reason to worry that I'd overlook this proposal in favor of my other one. There has simply been no new replies to the latest revision.

Then we must opine that the entire resolution is a failure, since it in no way defines the purpose of primary education in a non-circular manner.
I'm sorry if I didn't spell out the purpose of the proposal. Oh, wait, that's what I did when I wrote it.

Ambassador, if you're going to honestly sit there and say that a resolution is a failure because it clearly spells out its purpose with actual content, but doesn't provide a definition of the purpose, then I can't honestly sit here and have a serious debate.

Contradicts the purpose of this bill. Suppose the nation does not require it at all.The proposal forces nations to require it, so it's a moot point.

Problematic. What if there is no majority? Indeed, a nation should not have a majority of an age group. Imagine, if you will, having over 50% of a nation being of a particular age. Not even age group. Furthermore, setting the age of a juvenile relative to a shifting age standard means a shifting juvenile age, making things nastily problematic indeed.Using 'age of majority' is a standard way of defining the legal age of an adult. Restrictions on Child Labor using this definition, for example: "Defines a 'minor' as a person below the legal age of majority as defined in their nation."

Contradicts I.b. How so?

So now the WA is defining our curriculum as well? This is not acceptable to the Dominion.Forgive me for this break in diplomatic behavior, but the curriculum argument is old and finished. If it comes to vote, you are free to vote against it. However, it is the view, and will forever remain the view, of the delegation of Glen-Rhodes that the World Assembly has every authority to dictate required courses. Now, whether or not the World Assembly has the authority to dictate the specific content of those courses (e.g. textbooks, worksheets, subjects), is a question that is not being raised by this proposal.

What is standard-level brain activity?Standard-level brain activity is standard-level brain activity. Since different species are members of the World Assembly, I'm not going to try and define what 'standard-level brain activity is'; it is up to the nations to define it (which, in most cases, they already have; somebody with mental retardation isn't capable of 'standard-level brain activity' in Glen-Rhodes, for example).

It is unreasonable for one to assume that there can even be an international standard of education. The cultures and needs of people differ widely. Some may be raised in warlike cultures, while others may have to farm with their family so as to not starve. It would be darkly amusing, indeed, were a child to starve because the WA demanded that he attend a school.Which is exactly why the committee assists nations in creating local standards, in the absence of the possibility of international standards: "... and assisting national governments with the establishment of local standards of education where internationally common standards of education are infeasible".

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

New Illuve

05-01-2009, 22:24

Glen-Rhodes

05-01-2009, 22:31

The Holy Empire of New Illuve wishes to enquire if Article V will be included as in the most recent draft put forward, or will it be removed and moved to another Proposal for further discussion and work?

At this time, it will be removed. A proposal introducing it has already been put up for debate.

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

New Illuve

05-01-2009, 22:56

Indeed; the Holy Empire has seen and purused that debate. However, as no formal announcement has been made in this debate She was curious as to the status of Article V.

The Holy Empire thanks the Ambassador.

Wachichi

05-01-2009, 23:48

@ the ambassador from Dagnus Reardinius:

on your comment about mandating cirriculum, if you will listen to my comment first.

we aren't really mandating cirriculums, what we're doing is mandating MINIMUM cirriculum for nations to teach. as stated in the proposal, all nations have the right and freedom to go beyond any of the measures proposed in the bill.

@ my partner:

"c) 'juvenile' as a person between 1/3 and 2/3 the age of majority of their nation. "

perhaps we should consider altering this to "the age of....the average life expectancy in the WA member nation? to be more suitable and avoid confusion?

Wachichi

Harmonious Treefolk

06-01-2009, 01:27

"c) 'juvenile' as a person between 1/3 and 2/3 the age of majority of their nation. "

perhaps we should consider altering this to "the age of....the average life expectancy in the WA member nation? to be more suitable and avoid confusion?

The current fraction of age-of-majority method does have its flaws but changing it to be based on the average life expectency has more difficulties. The maturation, learning, and socialization ages are not directly affected by life expectency; that is, the factors that lead to longer lives in a nation do not also cause the citizens to mature at a proprotionally slower pace. Fractions of the life expectency will be too restrictive.

And on a more specific note, if you are going to change the basis of the fraction from the age of majority to the average life expectency, you will need new fractions. 1/3 the average life expectency in my nation is 20 years, and no one needs primary education for two decades.

Dagnus Reardinius

06-01-2009, 02:07

The proposal forces nations to require it, so it's a moot point.
Precisely my point. It is contradictory and should be stricken from the bill.

Using 'age of majority' is a standard way of defining the legal age of an adult. Restrictions on Child Labor using this definition, for example: "Defines a 'minor' as a person below the legal age of majority as defined in their nation."
Merely because it is standard and because poor bills have made use of such a standard does not at all mean it is sensible. I shall, for example, point out that "legal age of majority" does not mean anything. Furthermore, unless over half of one's nation is 20, or 25, or whichever number you wish (which is, frankly, barely possible), "age of majority" is not applicable. And despite the "age of majority" usage being supposedly standard and despite it having been used in previous bills, these are merely appeals to authorities, and do not explain why its use makes the bill better. It certainly does nothing for the fact that it will create a shifting juvenile age, should there even exist an "age of majority."

Forgive me for this break in diplomatic behavior, but the curriculum argument is old and finished. If it comes to vote, you are free to vote against it. However, it is the view, and will forever remain the view, of the delegation of Glen-Rhodes that the World Assembly has every authority to dictate required courses. Now, whether or not the World Assembly has the authority to dictate the specific content of those courses (e.g. textbooks, worksheets, subjects), is a question that is not being raised by this proposal.
Of course the World Assembly has the power to dictate such. It has the power to dictate virtually any aspect of policy within member nations. That it should not do so was my assertion.

Standard-level brain activity is standard-level brain activity. Since different species are members of the World Assembly, I'm not going to try and define what 'standard-level brain activity is'; it is up to the nations to define it (which, in most cases, they already have; somebody with mental retardation isn't capable of 'standard-level brain activity' in Glen-Rhodes, for example).
This is a workable solution, but should be clarified in the bill.

The Dominion

Harmonious Treefolk

06-01-2009, 02:26

Merely because it is standard and because poor bills have made use of such a standard does not at all mean it is sensible. I shall, for example, point out that "legal age of majority" does not mean anything. Furthermore, unless over half of one's nation is 20, or 25, or whichever number you wish (which is, frankly, barely possible), "age of majority" is not applicable. And despite the "age of majority" usage being supposedly standard and despite it having been used in previous bills, these are merely appeals to authorities, and do not explain why its use makes the bill better. It certainly does nothing for the fact that it will create a shifting juvenile age, should there even exist an "age of majority."

"Age of majority" has nothing to do with the number of citizens over a certain age. The age of majority is simply the age at which an individual is considered to have the full rights of an adult citizen. (Nobody jump down my throat--that is a simplified explanation and I know there are exceptions).

Gobbannium

06-01-2009, 03:07

I'm sorry if I didn't spell out the purpose of the proposal. Oh, wait, that's what I did when I wrote it.

Ambassador, if you're going to honestly sit there and say that a resolution is a failure because it clearly spells out its purpose with actual content, but doesn't provide a definition of the purpose, then I can't honestly sit here and have a serious debate.
We invite the honoured ambassador to consider whether replacing the word "primary" with "secondary" throughout and adjusting the age band does not produce an equally efficacious proposal. Since this is true, we are forced to conclude that the resolution does not, even internally, consider the purpose of primary education to be remotely important. Thus undirected, we find it highly unlikely that the proposal will achieve its laudible aims.

In short, the proposal sets curricula without considering whether they are relevant to the purpose of primary education at all. This cannot bode well.

Glen-Rhodes

06-01-2009, 03:22

We invite the honoured ambassador to consider whether replacing the word "primary" with "secondary" throughout and adjusting the age band does not produce an equally efficacious proposal. Since this is true, we are forced to conclude that the resolution does not, even internally, consider the purpose of primary education to be remotely important. Thus undirected, we find it highly unlikely that the proposal will achieve its laudible aims.

In short, the proposal sets curricula without considering whether they are relevant to the purpose of primary education at all. This cannot bode well.Perhaps if Gobbannium was writing a resolution on secondary education, that would be true. However, this proposal is leagues behind any secondary education mandate that my delegation and I would support.

The required courses in this proposal have been suggested by a variety of delegation. In fact, the only resemblance they have to the original ones that I proposed in the act are with mathematics and science. Given this fact, I feel safe saying that a this proposal includes a relatively accurate-enough depiction of the level of education that nations believe primary students ought to receive. We are not talking about a few years here, I should remind you. We are talking about, at possible average, six to eight years worth of education.

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

Dagnus Reardinius

06-01-2009, 07:52

"Age of majority" has nothing to do with the number of citizens over a certain age. The age of majority is simply the age at which an individual is considered to have the full rights of an adult citizen. (Nobody jump down my throat--that is a simplified explanation and I know there are exceptions).
Oh I understand now. I apologize for my earlier confusion. Silly me.

The Dominion

Bangla Desh

06-01-2009, 10:51

Given this fact, I feel safe saying that a this proposal includes a relatively accurate-enough depiction of the level of education that nations believe primary students ought to receive. We are not talking about a few years here, I should remind you. We are talking about, at possible average, six to eight years worth of education.

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

I absolutely strongly agree on the eight (8) years of education. This indeed is suitable to be the MINIMUM years of possible education.

Gobbannium

07-01-2009, 01:52

Perhaps if Gobbannium was writing a resolution on secondary education, that would be true. However, this proposal is leagues behind any secondary education mandate that my delegation and I would support.

The honoured ambassador will understand, then, that we similarly regard this proposal as being at cross-purposes with any primary education mandate that we would support.

Glen-Rhodes

07-01-2009, 02:18

The honoured ambassador will understand, then, that we similarly regard this proposal as being at cross-purposes with any primary education mandate that we would support.

I fully understand. However, at this time, I do not believe that altering the draft to introduce lower minimums would be a healthy revision. I'm sure that the delegation of Gobbannium will understand why.

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

Wachichi

07-01-2009, 05:13

Glen-Rhodes

07-01-2009, 21:34

hm... for the age of majority issue,

perhaps we should just specify age in detail such as actual numbers like ages...... 5-12? or something of the sort. i know of the diversity of many nations, however, maybe we could see the most common age for children in most member nations, and put it as a median of sorts?

as for the definition of child. i believe we would need an updated version posted by my partner to further the debate.

Wachichi

Introducing static age limits would create a myriad of additional problems. Somewhat imilar to the 'average standard' problem that plagued a long-ago version of this act, equating an average age limit is impractical.

Lastly, I don't know what you expect, in regards to an "updated version" of the definition of 'child'. The latest revision "[defines] 'juvenile' as a person between 1/3 and 2/3 the age of majority of their nation". The debate has not yet produced any other definition.

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

Gobbannium

08-01-2009, 00:32

I fully understand. However, at this time, I do not believe that altering the draft to introduce lower minimums would be a healthy revision.
We thank the honourable gentleman for demonstrating that he has not understood in the least. We are not and have not been talking about minima, maxima or anything of the like.

Let us try this once again. The purpose of this proposal is to improve the standards of primary education across the WA, which we concur is a worthy aim. To achieve this, is it not reasonable to consider for what reason primary education exists? That would allow us to consider what standards are necessary, what are helpful, what are merely admirable, what are ultimately irrelevant, and what are actively harmful to our ends.

It is understandable that the proposal text should not go into great detail on this matter, but the matter seems not to have been considered at all. The definitions declare that primary education shall be mandatory for a given age group, but give no hint as to what should achieve -- the arbitrariness of the age group does not help in this matter. It leaves the impression that the purpose of primary education is to be attended, which would be a empty purpose indeed were it true. Curricula sprout and fitting standards in them are left to be determined between local government and a WA committee, but absent a purpose they have no yardstick to measure fitness by. Given that lack, the aptness of resulting standards becomes something of a lottery.

This proposal will be a success by its own definitions, obviously. Whether it will succeed in its purpose is another matter entirely; at present we are inclined to suspect that it will do neither harm nor good.

Urgench

08-01-2009, 00:39

Harmonious Treefolk

08-01-2009, 01:52

What purpose should education have then honoured Ambassador ?

A worthy question indeed! I suppose we could start with the definition of education set out in article Ia of this resolution:

I) DEFINE the following, solely for the purpose of this resolution:
a) '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.

What more should we add to the purpose of education beyond these requirements? (This is not a rhetorical question.)

Urgench

08-01-2009, 02:04

A worthy question indeed! I suppose we could start with the definition of education set out in article Ia of this resolution:

What more should we add to the purpose of education beyond these requirements? (This is not a rhetorical question.)

We ask because our own education system is not charged with pre-defined aims and is seen as an end in itself. We would not wish to have to change this culture for any reason and would deeply resent any other than the broadest possible references to outcomes ( which in our opinion are best judged by individuals themselves ) and would oppose measures which endangered our system in this regard.

Yours,

Harmonious Treefolk

08-01-2009, 02:12

We ask because our own education system is not charged with pre-defined aims and is seen as an end in itself. We would not wish to have to change this culture for any reason and would deeply resent any other than the broadest possible references to outcomes ( which in our opinion are best judged by individuals themselves ) and would oppose measures which endangered our system in this regard.

I must express my admiration for your nation, honorable Khan, for that is an admirable trait in a nation.

The outcomes from article III appear very broad and unrestrictive to me; however, that may not be the same for your nation. Hypothetically, if this resolution were passed today in its current form, would your education system need to be changed in a harmful manner?

Urgench

08-01-2009, 02:27

I must express my admiration for your nation, honorable Khan, for that is an admirable trait in a nation.

The outcomes from article III appear very broad and unrestrictive to me; however, that may not be the same for your nation. Hypothetically, if this resolution were passed today in its current form, would your education system need to be changed in a harmful manner?

We thank the honoured and respected Ambassador for the renowned Harmonious Treefolk for their words, you do us honour.

May the horde of Harmonious Treefolk ride swift across the plain for all time.

This resolution already represents a very grave threat to our system which allows our citizens ( young and old ) the freedom to decide their own learning plan and to learn in whatever environment and at whatever rate suits them best.

It is one of the reasons we will be voting against this statute.

Yours sincerely,

Harmonious Treefolk

08-01-2009, 02:39

This resolution already represents a very grave threat to our system which allows our citizens ( young and old ) the freedom to decide their own learning plan and to learn in whatever environment and at whatever rate suits them best.

It is one of the reasons we will be voting against this statute.

Does the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench, then, have any minimum or standard classes for citizens? If not, is the outcome of the self-planned education generally positive?

I ask because yours would be an example of a nation that would be strongly affected by this resolution. Your education system may help illuminate which parts of the current resolution are necessary/logical, and which parts are unnecessary or harmful.

Urgench

08-01-2009, 03:36

Does the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench, then, have any minimum or standard classes for citizens? If not, is the outcome of the self-planned education generally positive?

I ask because yours would be an example of a nation that would be strongly affected by this resolution. Your education system may help illuminate which parts of the current resolution are necessary/logical, and which parts are unnecessary or harmful.

Urgench does not have any minimum or standard "classes" and in fact pedagogy and mass education in School environments are the exception. Naturally we provide whatever means are necessary for our citizens to develop the life which suits them best.

The outcomes of this system are hard to judge from certain stand points but we have 100% literacy and numeracy, we have numerous universities of the highest calibre and our citizens are clever, knowledgeable, happy, well adjusted, prosperous and above all free. Indeed the Empire is embarrassed with abundance, both material and intellectual and we have almost no crime at all.

Yours,

Glen-Rhodes

08-01-2009, 03:57

We thank the honourable gentleman for demonstrating that he has not understood in the least. We are not and have not been talking about minima, maxima or anything of the like.

Let us try this once again. The purpose of this proposal is to improve the standards of primary education across the WA, which we concur is a worthy aim. To achieve this, is it not reasonable to consider for what reason primary education exists? That would allow us to consider what standards are necessary, what are helpful, what are merely admirable, what are ultimately irrelevant, and what are actively harmful to our ends.

It is understandable that the proposal text should not go into great detail on this matter, but the matter seems not to have been considered at all. The definitions declare that primary education shall be mandatory for a given age group, but give no hint as to what should achieve -- the arbitrariness of the age group does not help in this matter. It leaves the impression that the purpose of primary education is to be attended, which would be a empty purpose indeed were it true. Curricula sprout and fitting standards in them are left to be determined between local government and a WA committee, but absent a purpose they have no yardstick to measure fitness by. Given that lack, the aptness of resulting standards becomes something of a lottery.

This proposal will be a success by its own definitions, obviously. Whether it will succeed in its purpose is another matter entirely; at present we are inclined to suspect that it will do neither harm nor good.Whether or not you are suggesting a smaller minimum, you are suggesting that the courses ought to be changed. If you thought that they were satisfactory, then you would have never replied in the manners that you have.

It seems that I have made the grave mistake of assuming that words speak for themselves. So, I shall dissect the phrase 'primary education' for the delegations that are unsure about it's meaning. The first and primary word is.. well, primary. Primary meaning that it is not derived from or reducible to something else; it is basic. Therefore, primary education is the first round of education, if not the only one, in a child's life. As such, one might learn their nation's language and how to write it. One might learn arithmetic -- how to add, subtract, divide, etc. One might further learn the basics about their solar system, or their planet. Of course, should this act be passed, one would learn about all those things.

Naturally, not all nations use the term primary education, so I shouldn't assume that all delegations would know what comprises it. That is a mistake on my part, and the definition shall be amended to state the purpose I have given above.

This resolution already represents a very grave threat to our system which allows our citizens ( young and old ) the freedom to decide their own learning plan and to learn in whatever environment and at whatever rate suits them best.
Is it not safe to assume that the people of Urgench are knowledgeable about the topics mandated in this legislation? I do not know the specifics about the Urgenchi education system, but by the way you describe your population, I'm assuming that children would know these things by their sixth or seventh year of education (if they attend that long).

You are very proud of your nation's intelligence, and very well should be. I'm baffled why a nation of such intellect would oppose mandating a minimum level of education. Urgench seems to have a rather unique education philosophy, that I'm not sure has been sufficiently described yet. But, if the end goal is massive intelligence, whether it be in plumbing or public leadership, wouldn't the mandate of a minimum level of education be a good thing? The current wording allows for extreme customization -- wording that I believe was suggested by the delegation of Urgench. There are only six required courses over a rather lengthy period of time. Urgench is free to mold these courses however they wish -- teach a month of arithmetic here, a week of science there; obviously an unorganized example, but the point is made clear.

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

Gobbannium

08-01-2009, 06:14

It seems that I have made the grave mistake of assuming that words speak for themselves.
On the contrary, Ambassador. You have chosen not to allow the words to speak for themselves in your proposal, but instead to define them in a mechanical and uninstructive way. We do not argue that you should not have defined them -- as you later point out, nations differ markedly in their educational systems -- but it is somewhat invidious to make this claim.

So, I shall dissect the phrase 'primary education' for the delegations that are unsure about it's meaning. The first and primary word is.. well, primary. Primary meaning that it is not derived from or reducible to something else; it is basic. Therefore, primary education is the first round of education, if not the only one, in a child's life.

Whilst we would quibble only slightly about your conclusion here, your derivation of it is distinctly unsound. We see no compelling argument to believe that "primary" is not used in the simple sense of "first" rather than "irreducible". Still, this is a considerable step forwards in defining what primary education is, and we look forward to seeing it worked into the proposal.

What neither this nor your subsequent examples of potential elements of primary education provides, contrary to your later statement, is any indication of the purpose of primary education. What distinguishes primary education from secondary? If the answer is solely "primary education comes first" then surely there is no point in distinguishing between the two, because age is the only discriminant.

Fortunately, we do believe that there is a distinction. We are uncertain that we are articulating it well, but we offer this for consideration:

Primary education fits a child for learning; secondary education fits a child for life.

If we may expand upon that summation, we would contend that primary education is directed at giving individuals what they need so that secondary education can be effective. This is not just a matter of simple tools like the four 'R's -- reading, writing, rhetoric and 'rithmatic -- but also of the physical and social contexts provided by groundings in history, science, religion and the like.

From this slightly abstracted viewpoint much is clarified. It is much easier to define appropriate content for courses when one knows what those courses should be building to achieve; a clear goal of 'reading' is obviously comprehension rather than simple parroting, for example, since that would better enable more complex secondary courses. Note also that the matter of age is less meaningful and more implicit; an individual ceases primary education when they have been adequately outfitted to learn, whatever age a nation may determine that to be. Even drawing that clear-cut an age distinction may be unnecessary, however convenient we may individually find it, since it may prove to be both practical and wise to commence some secondary elements early and finish some primary elements late compared with the rigid nature of the academic cycle. It is often argued that foreign languages can be benefically started at a relatively young age, for example.

We hope this elucidates the problems we feel the thus-far mechanical approach to this subject engenders.

Urgench

08-01-2009, 16:20

Is it not safe to assume that the people of Urgench are knowledgeable about the topics mandated in this legislation? I do not know the specifics about the Urgenchi education system, but by the way you describe your population, I'm assuming that children would know these things by their sixth or seventh year of education (if they attend that long).

It would be safe to presume that all adult Urgenchis are highly educated persons, indeed we consider it a national characteristic. Our life span ( extended by the introduction of Dew drugs some several centuries ago) is far longer than our ancestors and our youth is extended over a far greater proportion of our lives and education is a lifelong pursuit with us . It would not be safe to to presume that our children are all fully conversant with the subjects outlined in this statute by the age of six or seven therefore. We made this clear earlier in the debate.

I'm baffled why a nation of such intellect would oppose mandating a minimum level of education. Urgench seems to have a rather unique education philosophy, that I'm not sure has been sufficiently described yet. But, if the end goal is massive intelligence, whether it be in plumbing or public leadership, wouldn't the mandate of a minimum level of education be a good thing?

The philosophy could not be simpler, education is not viewed as a means to an end, we do not use our education system to engineer outcomes for our entire society . Our citizens are free to follow whatever paths in knowledge suit them best. Happiness and self fulfillment are the watchwords of our system. Our experts and specialists in all fields are all the more brilliant because we have allowed them to develop their obsessions and interests to the fullest extent and our general populace is better educated because they are free to explore every avenue of learning to whatever extent they wish.

We do not demur from the assertion that a minimum of education is desirable in all citizens of w.a. states, how this is achieved and what this minimum should be it would be hypocritical of us to define, though we naturally abhor the notion that there may be citizens of other w.a. states who cannot even read, write, count, or comprehend the fundamentals of the world around them. This was why we advocated a statute which increased funding in education and encouraged best practice and better training for educators. That is not what this resolution represents anymore.

The current wording allows for extreme customization -- wording that I believe was suggested by the delegation of Urgench. There are only six required courses over a rather lengthy period of time. Urgench is free to mold these courses however they wish -- teach a month of arithmetic here, a week of science there; obviously an unorganized example, but the point is made clear.

Urgench does not teach its citizens anything, it enables its citizens to completely educate themselves. However we once thought it possible to support this statute because it seemed that the required classes were balanced by actual improvements to the systems of education of the w.a.

The room for customization which your delegation did us the favour of including in this statute has now been considerably overshadowed by other requirements and a distinct departure in guiding philosophy which would have consequences we could not agree to.

If one adds to this the lack of goodwill which Dr Castro has recently shown towards our contribution to this debate it is fairly easy to see how we are unable to have any confidence in this statute.

But by all means continue to ignore us and sideline us, we are reluctant even now to monopolise anymore of Dr Castro's precious time, and our intent in rejoining this debate was purely to discuss the differences in educational philosophy which may or may not exist between ourselves and the respected and esteemed delegation of Gobbannium who's opinion and good sense we hold in high regard. Perhaps in doing so we hoped to insure that our own concerns were not completely forgotten.

Yours e.t.c. ,

New Illuve

08-01-2009, 21:13

In the opinion of the Holy Empire of New Illuve, the honored Prince of Gobbannium has touched the major flaw in this Proposal. For all the debate and words, there is no substance to this Proposal. At best, it only provides the absolute minimum of a skeleton upon which a nation is to build a primary education system upon but nothing else.

Ultimately, this Proposal will result in no changes. Those nations which exceed the goals of this Proposal can safely ignore it and those nations that oppose it for one or another reason have more than sufficient opportunities contained within the Proposal itself to render it useless in achieving the intent of the writers.

Unless there are radical changes in this Proposal, the Holy Empire would not be able to vote in favor of it, or recommend to Her Delegate or fellow regional World Assembly members to do the same. Sadly, given the nature of the World Assembly, She would also not be able to abstain should this Proposal come to vote.

The goal of this Proposal is noble, and is one that the Holy Empire would support. However, this Proposal as it now stands is not up to that goal.

Glen-Rhodes

09-01-2009, 00:14

What neither this nor your subsequent examples of potential elements of primary education provides, contrary to your later statement, is any indication of the purpose of primary education. What distinguishes primary education from secondary? If the answer is solely "primary education comes first" then surely there is no point in distinguishing between the two, because age is the only discriminant.

Fortunately, we do believe that there is a distinction. We are uncertain that we are articulating it well, but we offer this for consideration:

Primary education fits a child for learning; secondary education fits a child for life.Even if the distinction of primary education from other education is the age in which one attends, the purpose of any form of education is to further knowledge. The dangers of limiting the purpose of primary education as a precursor to further education is found in the fact that not all systems have secondary education. So, any definition that includes precursory wording is flawed in itself, as the purpose is no longer meaningful if there is no future education series.

If one is searching for the purpose of primary education, then they need not look further down the time-line. Summarily, the purpose of primary education is to teach the basic forms of subjects. Any more detail could lead to problems due to the heterogeneity of the World Assembly.

While I find myself in agreement with much of your response, the very fact that secondary education is not a universal factor washes away the foundation of your point that primary education serves as a precursor to future education. Which is a shame, because you've described the purpose of primary education perfectly, given that future education series exist.

Even so, "an individual ceases primary education when they have been adequately outfitted to learn" could be altered and put to use.

It would not be safe to to presume that our children are all fully conversant with the subjects outlined in this statute by the age of six or seven therefore. We made this clear earlier in the debate.Not at six or seven years of age, but rather six or seven years worth of education.

The philosophy could not be simpler, education is not viewed as a means to an end, we do not use our education system to engineer outcomes for our entire society . Our citizens are free to follow whatever paths in knowledge suit them best. Happiness and self fulfillment are the watchwords of our system. Our experts and specialists in all fields are all the more brilliant because we have allowed them to develop their obsessions and interests to the fullest extent and our general populace is better educated because they are free to explore every avenue of learning to whatever extent they wish.Unfortunately, the philosophy isn't really simple. It's unique. Education is generally quite structured, and not as free-form as it is in Urgench. Though, I question whether or not the philosophy is sound if a person becomes an expert physicist, but doesn't know the elementary factors of language arts. However, I'm almost positive that this isn't the case for Urgench. All the more, where this is the case, this legislation provides a considerable advancement of knowledge. Whether or not an education system is structured or free-form, the core purpose is still the same. All education systems exist to provide knowledge.

A case can be made that if the children of Urgench were exposed to a survey of the required courses in this legislation, then they would be more able to decide which path they want to take further. Even though the children of Urgench may be decidedly smarter than those of Glen-Rhodes, I doubt that they are able to know exactly what they want to do in life from the get-go. If that's still not the case, then one would find it hard to argue that sampling is such a bad idea.

This was why we advocated a statute which increased funding in education and encouraged best practice and better training for educators. That is not what this resolution represents anymore.I'm not sure if that's what the resolution had ever represented. Funding has largely been a fringe piece of this legislation, to me at least. If given the choice between only one, I would choose to mandate minimum required courses, over providing virtually unlimited funding, any day. How teachers educate, and the best practices of doing so, have never been points of this legislation. In fact, I wouldn't feel comfortable legislating those two things at all.

If one adds to this the lack of goodwill which Dr Castro has recently shown towards our contribution to this debate it is fairly easy to see how we are unable to have any confidence in this statute.

But by all means continue to ignore us and sideline us, we are reluctant even now to monopolise anymore of Dr Castro's precious time ...Now, there is no need for this at all, Ambassador Mongkha. I did not bother to revisit the hostilities between our two delegations when responding. The same actions should be taken of you. My delegation and I are not interested in excluding you in any debate process, and the last thing that we have done, or intend to do, is to ignore the ambassadorial concerns of any delegation. We are open to a re-establishment of diplomatic relations with the complete delegation of Urgench, but neither of us are innocent, and both of our delegations must have a change in attitude before any process can start.
In the opinion of the Holy Empire of New Illuve, the honored Prince of Gobbannium has touched the major flaw in this Proposal. For all the debate and words, there is no substance to this Proposal. At best, it only provides the absolute minimum of a skeleton upon which a nation is to build a primary education system upon but nothing else.That is the purpose, Ambassador. To set a minimum that, in effect, raises the current standards of many poorly-managed education systems. In fact, the reason I started this was mainly because of nations that have no existing education system at all.

Ultimately, this Proposal will result in no changes. Those nations which exceed the goals of this Proposal can safely ignore it and those nations that oppose it for one or another reason have more than sufficient opportunities contained within the Proposal itself to render it useless in achieving the intent of the writers."Ignoring" isn't the word I would use, in the event that a nation already exceeds the mandates in this legislation. I would use "exceeds", actually. Furthermore, I invite the delegation of New Illuve to point out loopholes that allow for nations to not teach the required courses. After all, how am I to fix something if I cannot see what there is to fix?

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

Urgench

09-01-2009, 01:22

Not at six or seven years of age, but rather six or seven years worth of education.

Please excuse our confusion on this point. It would be difficult for us to be absolutely certain that every single child in the Empire was fully conversant in the mandatory subjects of this resolution after 6 or 7 years of education, but it is safe to say that all our children have enjoyed some instruction in them.

Unfortunately, the philosophy isn't really simple. It's unique. Education is generally quite structured, and not as free-form as it is in Urgench. Though, I question whether or not the philosophy is sound if a person becomes an expert physicist, but doesn't know the elementary factors of language arts. However, I'm almost positive that this isn't the case for Urgench.

Indeed this would be nigh on impossible, there are many hundreds of languages within the empire a specialist would need excellent language skills to work effectively with colleagues in their field. This highlights another reason why our system is as it is, the empire is so diverse in cultures, peoples, histories and traditions that merely to live in the CSKU is to be forced to quickly apprise oneself of as many of them as possible simply to get along in daily life.

All the more, where this is the case, this legislation provides a considerable advancement of knowledge. Whether or not an education system is structured or free-form, the core purpose is still the same. All education systems exist to provide knowledge.

It is the purpose of the knowledge and the reasons for imparting it and the consequences of deciding what is taught and how which we have issue with.

A case can be made that if the children of Urgench were exposed to a survey of the required courses in this legislation, then they would be more able to decide which path they want to take further. Even though the children of Urgench may be decidedly smarter than those of Glen-Rhodes, I doubt that they are able to know exactly what they want to do in life from the get-go. If that's still not the case, then one would find it hard to argue that sampling is such a bad idea.

We do not wish to require our children to decide upon a path and take it further. We expect and encourage our citizens to wander down numerous paths of knowledge and to find as much gratification in them as they wish. We encourage them to involve themselves in whichever realms of learning they wish when ever they wish.

I'm not sure if that's what the resolution had ever represented. Funding has largely been a fringe piece of this legislation, to me at least. If given the choice between only one, I would choose to mandate minimum required courses, over providing virtually unlimited funding, any day. How teachers educate, and the best practices of doing so, have never been points of this legislation. In fact, I wouldn't feel comfortable legislating those two things at all.

We are not advocating that the w.a. get into the specifics of how to educate nor are we suggesting that the w.a. should directly fund its member state's education systems en masse. We are suggesting that this statute could have required states to increase education funding as a percentage of national spending and could have required specific increases in funding for education research into best practice and in pay and training of educators.

There was at least some hint of this possibility at the begining of this process there is none now.

Required classes taught poorly by people with inadequate training and no proper recognition of their worth to society in systems which care little about the efficacy of teaching methods or developing new and better methods will produce no significant increase in levels of attainment of knowledge among the young

Now, there is no need for this at all, Ambassador Mongkha. I did not bother to revisit the hostilities between our two delegations when responding. The same actions should be taken of you. My delegation and I are not interested in excluding you in any debate process, and the last thing that we have done, or intend to do, is to ignore the ambassadorial concerns of any delegation. We are open to a re-establishment of diplomatic relations with the complete delegation of Urgench, but neither of us are innocent, and both of our delegations must have a change in attitude before any process can start.

We were not revisiting any "hostilities" Dr Castro, merely explaining to you why we were no longer confident that our influence here would have any actual benefit and why our overall confidence in this statute was at a low ebb.

Our attitude remains as it always has, we will work in cooperation with any state which wishes to cooperate with us. If we have not been able to on this statute with your delegation recently it is because we felt that our concerns had been too frequently ignored or insulted.

In any event in the name of good relations we are prepared to let bygones be bygones, as they say, and apologise for any offence any member of our delegation may inadvertently have caused your delegation.

Yours,

Gobbannium

09-01-2009, 02:12

Even if the distinction of primary education from other education is the age in which one attends, the purpose of any form of education is to further knowledge.
Again, this fails to be a meaningful discriminant or useful metric, since it applies as well to secondary (or indeed tertiary) education as to primary, and thus leaves those setting standards with no guidance. In any case, surely the honoured ambassador has not failed to notice that across the World Assembly there is no consistent age, even between peoples of similar lifespan, that distinguishes primary education from secondary?

The dangers of limiting the purpose of primary education as a precursor to further education is found in the fact that not all systems have secondary education. So, any definition that includes precursory wording is flawed in itself, as the purpose is no longer meaningful if there is no future education series.
While there is some truth to what you say, would it not be better to require that secondary education exists in a resolution that concerns secondary education? You wisely chose to concentrate on only one stage of education in this proposal, and we would urge you not to muddy your thinking at this stage. Future education should be for future legislation.

If one is searching for the purpose of primary education, then they need not look further down the time-line.
We contend again, honoured ambassador, that in such a case one is searching in the wrong place.

Summarily, the purpose of primary education is to teach the basic forms of subjects. Any more detail could lead to problems due to the heterogeneity of the World Assembly.
A thousand times, no! Again you speak of purpose but fail to lift your eyes beyond the mechanical. The achievement of primary education is to teach some of the basic forms of some subjects, as well as more advanced forms of others and nothing at all of still more, but to call that its purpose is to reason in circles once more.

Glen-Rhodes

09-01-2009, 02:34

It is the purpose of the knowledge and the reasons for imparting it and the consequences of deciding what is taught and how which we have issue with.All which are fair enough. I'm uncertain if you would ever be satisfied with Article III, as I'm weary of, and currently unwilling to, revise it in such a way that promotes a more free-form system. While Urgench may have the resources and moral upstanding to not to so, many nations at which this legislation is aimed at could easily, and probably would, not live up to the spirit of the act, and do as little as possible to ensure a quality education. Unfortunately, the adage "one bad apple spoils the bunch" applies.

We are not advocating that the w.a. get into the specifics of how to educate nor are we suggesting that the w.a. should directly fund its member state's education systems en masse. We are suggesting that this statute could have required states to increase education funding as a percentage of national spending and could have required specific increases in funding for education research into best practice and in pay and training of educators.

...

Required classes taught poorly by people with inadequate training and no proper recognition of their worth to society in systems which care little about the efficacy of teaching methods or developing new and better methods will produce no significant increase in levels of attainment of knowledge among the young. While mandating a percentage of GDP be allocated to education is a slippery slope that ought not to be challenged, you do have a valid point that I wish was more clearly conveyed much earlier. Requiring teacher training is a quality that I'll gladly write in. As is education research. My stance on World Assembly-provided salaries is still the same, though. I believe that that kind of spending isn't quite practical at this time.

In any event in the name of good relations we are prepared to let bygones be bygones, as they say and apologise for any offence any member of our delegation may inadvertently have caused your delegation.So be it, and the same to you, Ambassador.

A thousand times, no! Again you speak of purpose but fail to lift your eyes beyond the mechanical. The achievement of primary education is to teach some of the basic forms of some subjects, as well as more advanced forms of others and nothing at all of still more, but to call that its purpose is to reason in circles once more.It is you that is running around in circles. You believe that the purpose of primary education is to prepare oneself for future education. (That is fine. However, it is not acceptable in this resolution, for the purposes I stated in my last reply.) Such a statement can be furthered to "the purpose of primary education is to instruct in basic knowledge of subjects, to prepare oneself for more detailed instruction in said subjects throughout future education". Given that there is no guarantee that nations have future education, the latter clause cannot be included. Thus, you have "the purpose of primary education is to instruct in basic knowledge of subjects". It is also true that the end goal of primary education is to be adequately instructed as such. The purpose of primary education, and the hopeful achievement, are one in the same.

OBSERVING 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 the right to education,

ACKNOWLEDGING that primary education serves the purpose of imparting basic knowledge of subjects,

The World Assembly shall thus:
I) DEFINE the following, solely for the purpose of this resolution:
a) '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.
b) ‘primary education’ as the series of educational courses a person must attend, until they have reached an adequate level of knowledge in required courses; such level of adequacy shall be defined by each nation.

II) MANDATE that every juvenile shall be provided a primary education that includes the required minimum courses in Article III, free of direct cost to the juveniles 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 juvenile'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) MANDATE that all World Assembly member nations make primary education readily available to people of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of standard-level brain activity.

VI) ESTABLISH the World Assembly Education Services Committee, which is tasked with assisting in:
a) 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
b) the establishment of national and international education research organizations
c) the establishment and maintenance of local, national, and international educator training programs.

VII) EXTEND the duties of the General Accounting Office to include approving, denying, and generally managing all requests for financial aid, in regards to the mandates and programs of this Act, based on the qualifications of the requesting World Assembly member nation as written in Article VIII, and the fiscal responsibility of those requests.

VIII) DECLARE that a World Assembly 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.

I am aware that the acceptable word count is exceeded.

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

Urgench

09-01-2009, 03:09

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 ?

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,

This is just one of the many contributions we have made which made it abundantly clear what we thought about funding of teaching and training.

We made this point on numerous occassions in previous debates on other education resolution your delegation forwarded also.

We have had to make the same point over and over again which is one of the reasons we lost confidence in this debate.

We are depressed at the prospect of being made to suffer because of these bad apples you speak of Dr Castro.

We should point out that we suggested increasing funding for teaching and training as a proportion of government spending not of GDP the difference is profound.

We will make a point which has been made before and not just by us, Your delegation is requiring us to dismantle one of the best funded and most comprehensive education systems we know of and yet you demur to require negligent, lasy and incompetent governments who do not give a tinker's cus about their people's education to increase their government spending on education. Why Dr Castro ?

Does this really constitute improvement or is it rather harmonisation into mediocrity or worse ?

Also your delegation will require the teaching of mandatory subjects which governments will be in breach of their legal obligations if they do not have them taught and yet you do not care if those hard working individuals who will meet your delegation's requirements are not adequately rewarded or offered proper working support and conditions. Why Dr Castro ?

Yours,

Glen-Rhodes

09-01-2009, 04:39

This is just one of the many contributions we have made which made it abundantly clear what we thought about funding of teaching and training."Clear" being the operative word, Ambassador. "[Funding] the upgrading of ... education systems" and "[maintaining] hardware" aren't easily translatable in to "provide funding for research and training". Many delegations choose to showcase their wide vocabulary during debates, which inhibits progress if their intent isn't easily conveyed.

We should point out that we suggested increasing funding for teaching and training as a proportion of government spending not of GDP the difference is profound.Government expenditures are covered in GDP, Ambassador Mongkha. A portion of government spending and a portion of GDP are the same thing, just different wordings.

We will make a point which has been made before and not just by us, Your delegation is requiring us to dismantle one of the best funded and most comprehensive education systems we know of and yet you demur to require negligent, lasy and incompetent governments who do not give a tinker's cus about their people's education to increase their government spending on education. Why Dr Castro ?

Does this really constitute improvement or is it rather harmonisation into mediocrity or worse ?Why? Because the wealthy are responsible for the poor. The World Assembly is not an organization that caters to only the well-off, but directs humanitarian effort those populations that need it the most. 'Dismantling' is quite a loaded word that suggests that this legislation aims to detract from any education system; instead of 'dismantling', one might more accurately use 'modifying'. Yes, Urgench will have to modify it's system. But, on the other hand, the international community is forcing it's hand on other nations where people aren't allowed a quality education. Changing from one prosperity to the next, to insure that children in poverty or oppression get the education afforded to those in more prosperous nations shouldn't be a hard choice to make.

I refer back to my comment that the imposition of inconvenience is no flaw in a resolution that does more good than harm, and the lobbying by nations to suggest that it is won't greatly affect my decision to continue on with the resolution. Urgench has a legitimate reason to vote against the proposal should it come to vote, but when it says that it is flawed because they have to change their system... well, that suggestion will fall on deaf ears.

Also your delegation will require the teaching of mandatory subjects which governments will be in breach of their legal obligations if they do not have them taught and yet you do not care if those hard working individuals who will meet your delegation's requirements are not adequately rewarded or offered proper working support and conditions. Why Dr Castro ?
The providing of educator salaries is a commendable aim, Ambassador Mongkha. In fact, we practice it in Glen-Rhodes. The question of whether or not the World Assembly should be paying anyone's salary, save for the direct employees of the World Assembly, is an easy question for my delegation to answer: the World Assembly should not. Directly relying on the World Assembly for wages is an unhealthy expansion of authority in the World Assembly's part. Not to mention that it sets a fiscally irresponsible and down-right dangerous precedent. We cannot assume that the World Assembly will always have an unlimited supply of cash. Should this cash run low, or should the World Assembly cease to exist, as it's predecessor did, then economies are likely to go in free-fall -- the likelihood of such being based on how many employees are paid by the World Assembly... a number which increases with every resolution that bases paying wages on the precedence set by this act.

Now, I could mandate that teachers be paid for their work, and tack the responsibility on to the nations themselves. But, what of communist states? Voluntary states? Or the numerous other ideologies that limit wages? Normally, I would say that the destruction of a single characteristic of an ideology does not constitute a violation, but the affect on economies that ideologies have is a considerable one. For instance, a state may not impose taxes, because it's workers do not earn any cash. Mandating wages would mean that this state would be in violation until they pay teachers' wages. The most effective way to do this would be to establish a tax. However, since no income has ever been earned, what good does a tax do?

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

Urgench

09-01-2009, 05:19

Government expenditures are covered in GDP, Ambassador Mongkha. A portion of government spending and a portion of GDP are the same thing, just different wordings.

Government spending and Gross Domestic Product are not the same thing Dr Castro and they are not synonymous. We are well aware that GDP includes Government spending but to increase government spending on education does not necessarily mean increasing Government spending as a proportion of GDP. Government spending may remain at the same level, it is just the amount of this spending which is used for education which changes.

It is misleading to use the two terms interchangeably.

Why? Because the wealthy are responsible for the poor. The World Assembly is not an organization that caters to only the well-off, but directs humanitarian effort those populations that need it the most.

We will gladly pay handsomely into any fund which will help develop the education systems of poorer states and we will offer them the benefit of our experience and expertise also, because we have a conscience, but we are not responsible for the poor governance of failed states, these states are responsible for themselves. We will not have our own system vandalised to afford the opportunity for negligent governments to meet mandatory subject requirements , that would be lunacy.

'Dismantling' is quite a loaded word that suggests that this legislation aims to detract from any education system; instead of 'dismantling', one might more accurately use 'modifying'. Yes, Urgench will have to modify it's system. But, on the other hand, the international community is forcing it's hand on other nations where people aren't allowed a quality education. Changing from one prosperity to the next, to insure that children in poverty or oppression get the education afforded to those in more prosperous nations shouldn't be a hard choice to make.

What this resolution offers billions of Urgenchis is not any sort of prosperity and indeed it will represent a drastic worsening of standards of education for them. We would be able to stomach this ( though perhaps not vote for it ) if it actually improved education in poorer states but all this does is require poorer states to teach mandatory subjects. How is this an improvement ? the systems teaching these subjects will still be bankrupt and will groan under the weight of new and unfunded responsibilities.

I refer back to my comment that the imposition of inconvenience is no flaw in a resolution that does more good than harm, and the lobbying by nations to suggest that it is won't greatly affect my decision to continue on with the resolution. Urgench has a legitimate reason to vote against the proposal should it come to vote, but when it says that it is flawed because they have to change their system... well, that suggestion will fall on deaf ears.

So you will rob peter to pay paul Dr Castro ? You will damn Urgench or any other state with a system which does well but does not conform to your plan just to bring all w.a. states into a pointless parity, making them all equally stupid in effect.

Now, I could mandate that teachers be paid for their work, and tack the responsibility on to the nations themselves. But, what of communist states? Voluntary states? Or the numerous other ideologies that limit wages? Normally, I would say that the destruction of a single characteristic of an ideology does not constitute a violation, but the affect on economies that ideologies have is a considerable one. For instance, a state may not impose taxes, because it's workers do not earn any cash. Mandating wages would mean that this state would be in violation until they pay teachers' wages. The most effective way to do this would be to establish a tax. However, since no income has ever been earned, what good does a tax do?

Indeed this latter is what we were suggesting, not the w.a. paying teacher's wages.

What of Communist states Dr Castro ? And what of Voluntary ones ? You offer them a mercy you have no wish to offer Theocracies or Dictatorships or Urgench for that matter.

Why do you discriminate in who's philosophies you trample to achieve your aim Dr Castro when if you did not bother to discriminate your whole aim might actually be achieved ?

Surely all states have a responsibility to see their people properly educated despite their philosophy of government no ? At least that has been the gist of your arguments so far. Then why if making sure that teachers had better pay and conditions of work would you stop short of making this mandatory also ?

If you object to making certain states pay teachers proper wages then why not make them give teachers better working or living conditions ?

We fear that all you are really interested in is mandatory classes and all the social engineering this implies.

Yours,

Wachichi

09-01-2009, 06:47

if mandatory classes are what the ambassador of Urgench opposes in this proposal than we can change that.

how about we define primary education with "need" in place of "must" therefore not really mandatory classes. however, i would have to say that, my nation has had the opportunity to decentralize our educational system, however, we have experienced great success so we rejected the idea and built on it.

now we do recognize that one educational law can't be customized to accomadate every single nation, and we expect much opposition, however, seeing the success in my nation's educational system our government are strong believers in centralized ed.

so for the sake of open debate, what specifically would you recommend to this bill in it's newest form to help accomodate your educational system, without completely destroying the centralized themes my partner and I seem to propose.

Wachichi.

Urgench

09-01-2009, 13:31

Wachichi

09-01-2009, 23:59

Urgench

10-01-2009, 00:25

hm....

now, i see that such a statement would seem a bit contradictory. it's like saying, we want to set up a form of government, but we'll accept any kind of gov.

it does seem reasonable, that it would support any kind of educational system as long as it achieves satisfactory results, however, this bill never talks about results. we only talk about minimums. this bill is about structure, i'm trying to be as open minded as possible.

could you elaborate more on the topic of changes to accomodate other structured changes?

Wachichi.

(glad to debate you ambassador.)

And we are glad to debate with you honoured Ambassador.

While it is true that this resolution does not mention outcomes explicitly it does however create outcomes.

The main outcome being that children will be taught certain specific subjects.

We suggest that if an education system is capable of making sure that children are taught these specific subjects without making them mandatory ( as our system does ) it should be protected in doing so.

We have the same outcome achieved by different means.

In this case the means are very important to us.

Yours,

Glen-Rhodes

10-01-2009, 01:14

We will gladly pay handsomely into any fund which will help develop the education systems of poorer states and we will offer them the benefit of our experience and expertise also, because we have a conscience, but we are not responsible for the poor governance of failed states, these states are responsible for themselves. We will not have our own system vandalised to afford the opportunity for negligent governments to meet mandatory subject requirements , that would be lunacy.Throw money at the problem and hope that it'll fix itself? That is your suggestion, Ambassador? A failing education system cannot be made better by an infusion of capital, especially if that system has no real foundation in the first place. Instead of charity, these systems need structure. Instead of blank checks, these systems need regulation and oversight.

If I could make this legislation only affect failing education systems, then I certainly would. However, I cannot. That fact is not going to deter me from continuing on, no matter how much of an inconvenience it poses to efficient systems. If an existing system is truly efficient, then it should be able to remain efficient. What courses are taught and how they are distributed and chosen don't make a system efficient; it is only the way that the courses are taught, which includes how efficient the educators are themselves. Whether or not children in Urgench have required courses shouldn't affect the efficiency of Urgench's education system, if the system is indeed efficient.

We suggest that if an education system is capable of making sure that children are taught these specific subjects without making them mandatory ( as our system does ) it should be protected in doing so.There is no difference here, at all. It's mandatory courses without using the word 'mandatory', and would be a waste of space in an already over-crowded piece of legislation. If I'm not mistaken, the delegation of Urgench is confused about Article III. What it does not do is formulate how these things are taught -- nine weeks here, eighteen weeks there. Nations are to decide for themselves the exact structure of these classes, which is what you seem to be asking for.

if mandatory classes are what the ambassador of Urgench opposes in this proposal than we can change that. It should be noted that I have zero intention on removing mandatory courses. The content of these courses, or which courses are mandatory, is up for debate, but whether or not mandatory courses exist is not.

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

Gobbannium

10-01-2009, 04:56

It is you that is running around in circles. You believe that the purpose of primary education is to prepare oneself for future education. (That is fine. However, it is not acceptable in this resolution, for the purposes I stated in my last reply.)
We find ourselves in slight confusion. Have we not demonstrated to the honoured ambassador that those reasons are baseless? No matter, let us repeat the exercise...

Such a statement can be furthered to "the purpose of primary education is to instruct in basic knowledge of subjects, to prepare oneself for more detailed instruction in said subjects throughout future education".
Our proffered purpose can be used as a basis for this extended statement, that is true. However such an extension is unsafe, for it makes many assumptions that were not present in the original.

Given that there is no guarantee that nations have future education, the latter clause cannot be included.
Whyever not? We have no guarantee that sentences meted out to criminals will be fair or reasonable, but that should not stop us from resolving that trials convicting such criminal should be fair and reasonable. The subject of sentencing can and should be a matter for a resolution on its own; similarly, secondary education can be required to exist and fulfill its purpose in a separate resolution.

We cannot do everything in one go, ambassador, nor should we try. We can, however, build the pieces so that they can marry together properly. The definition offered in the latest draft is wide enough to include mandatory secondary education if it is considered to be meaningful at all, which would make such future legislation problematic at best.

Thus, you have "the purpose of primary education is to instruct in basic knowledge of subjects".
We hope we have demonstrated that this is not a valid conclusion.

It is also true that the end goal of primary education is to be adequately instructed as such. The purpose of primary education, and the hopeful achievement, are one in the same.
Were that true, life would be easy. Sadly identifying a goal and achieving it are far from the same thing, even were we to consider that we were speaking of the same goal.

Glen-Rhodes

10-01-2009, 18:34

... similarly, secondary education can be required to exist and fulfill its purpose in a separate resolution.

We cannot do everything in one go, ambassador, nor should we try. We can, however, build the pieces so that they can marry together properly. The definition offered in the latest draft is wide enough to include mandatory secondary education if it is considered to be meaningful at all, which would make such future legislation problematic at best.Both of us must be confused as to what the other is saying, because this is exactly what I have been suggesting.

The flaw with stating that the purpose of primary education is to prepare somebody for future education is that 'future education' might not exist. In states where it does not exist, then, by default, there is no purpose of primary education (which is what you want to avoid). In such circumstances, one might question why it is taught at all, if the purpose serves no use to said states.

The worry that the definition of primary education is too broad shouldn't be tremendous worry to future legislation, especially regarding secondary education, as any other education aside from primary isn't already defined. Indeed, one might include the definition of primary education verbatim as the definition of secondary education, and it would not affect the bill greatly. Indeed, the definition of primary education doesn't greatly affect the main purposes of this bill, either: to mandate minimum courses and to provide financial aid. The purposes of primary and secondary education, however, do and would affect the legislation of the two things. It should be noted that while purpose and definition share characteristics, they are not one in the same. Whereas the definition of a boat is "a small vessel for travel on water", the purpose might be transportation of goods, fishing, racing, recreational cruising, or military use, for example.
Were that true, life would be easy. Sadly identifying a goal and achieving it are far from the same thing, even were we to consider that we were speaking of the same goal.The purpose of anything is to achieve the purpose; it's rather cyclical. I'll bring up boats again. Say that the purpose of a certain boat is to transport good. Isn't the hopeful achievement of the boat to have successfully transported those goods? The only difference between purpose and achievement is that purpose starts at the beginning, and achievement is at the very end. What is in between the two is goal, which is the attempt of carrying out the purpose. Without purpose, there can be no goal, thus no achievement. Without goal, there can be no achievement, which makes purpose rather useless. We're playing endless game of semantics, that really doesn't affect the core of this legislation, even if it might slightly affect the intended outcome.

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

Wachichi

10-01-2009, 20:14

i'm not proposing making the classes voluntary.

i'm suggesting, changing "must" to "should". therefore not using language inhibiting toward certain countries while still show our determination to teach everyone. in it's form, will nations have to punish children who don't attend a class because it's mandatory? if that's the case, will they be killed for doing so? tortured? left to nations to punish their people?

@Urgench:

you make good points. the resolution does seem to imply some kind of results, if we were to consider your changes, then i think it would be left up to the Committee in the resolution to decide which nations can keep their education system as it is, or must make the changes to adhere to the resolution. any objections to that? so if you nation meets the requirements and results this resolution implies, the committee will let you keep your education system as long as it succeeds,(as you have told us it has) but if it fails, you would have to adhere to the changes in the resolution. any objections ambassador?

Wachichi.

New Illuve

10-01-2009, 20:31

Would the honored Dr. Casto please put forward the current draft of this Proposal? The Holy Empire would like to respond to his request made earlier, but wishes to do so based upon the most current version, and not, accidently, on an older form.

OOC: and please not in grey. It's very hard to read on a white background.

Glen-Rhodes

11-01-2009, 01:44

i'm not proposing making the classes voluntary.Changing 'must' to 'should' makes them completely voluntary.

you make good points. the resolution does seem to imply some kind of results, if we were to consider your changes, then i think it would be left up to the Committee in the resolution to decide which nations can keep their education system as it is, or must make the changes to adhere to the resolution. any objections to that? so if you nation meets the requirements and results this resolution implies, the committee will let you keep your education system as long as it succeeds,(as you have told us it has) but if it fails, you would have to adhere to the changes in the resolution. any objections ambassador?Despite the unacceptable expanse of authority this committee would have, it borders uncomfortably on illegal per an optionality violation. You cannot mandate things for certain nations, but let others ignore those mandates. I've yet to see a World Assembly resolution set a precedent on 'acceptable optionality' as vast as the one you are proposing (read: making the core of the bill optional), which is why I say 'borders'.

The likelihood that I'm going to change Article III in any other way than adding to removing courses isn't high.

Would the honored Dr. Casto please put forward the current draft of this Proposal? The Holy Empire would like to respond to his request made earlier, but wishes to do so based upon the most current version, and not, accidently, on an older form.

Revision 20 is located here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14378953&postcount=340. The first page of this topic contains a list of revisions, rather than overwriting old revisions.

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

Gobbannium

12-01-2009, 03:04

The purpose of anything is to achieve the purpose; it's rather cyclical.
Regretably we must continue to disagree. A purpose of a thing and the achievement of that purpose are two entirely different things. Conflating things in this manner is muddy thinking; the fact that you do so goes a long way to explaining how your other curious conclusions can be reached.

I'll bring up boats again. Say that the purpose of a certain boat is to transport good. Isn't the hopeful achievement of the boat to have successfully transported those goods? The only difference between purpose and achievement is that purpose starts at the beginning, and achievement is at the very end.
With respect, honoured ambassador, attempting to compare purpose and achievement in this manner is semantically unwise. Purpose is essentially not closely timebound. It is in some ways more correct to state that purpose exists before the beginning, but neither is a satisfying statement in reality. Achievement, by contrast, very much exists in time, quite possibly repeatedly.

What is in between the two is goal, which is the attempt of carrying out the purpose.
An odd and potentially misleading use of terminology, but we will go with it.

Without purpose, there can be no goal, thus no achievement.
Unmistakably so, given the definition of "goal".

Without goal, there can be no achievement, which makes purpose rather useless.
Again, by definition.

We're playing endless game of semantics, that really doesn't affect the core of this legislation, even if it might slightly affect the intended outcome.
Semantics are important. In this case, a proper consideration of the semantics makes the difference between an effective, directed piece of legislation and something rather more unfocused and less useful.

Moussaland

12-01-2009, 05:03

partner,

changing "must" to "should", would stress the need to attendance but allow individual nations to mandate it or not mandate it.

and i see no other solution than to entrust the committee with the powers i propose. remember, this is a 'mystical committee who's members come from air'. so it's not that serious. you can't assume that they are going to go on a spending spree or that they will have great restrictions. all we can do, is allow them to decide which nations need the progress of this bill and which nations do?

why will we change the structure of successful education systems if they meet the intended results? doesn't seem very logical. it should only apply to those nations who's education system is inadequate. it's name should be changed to "Failed Education Act" or something of the sort, to imply only aid to failing school systems. it would apply to all member nations, just that it won't help those who are successful. only applying to those who are doing badly or horribly.

therefore those nations would need certain minimums. ofcourse the minimums would be applied to all members in one way or another such as cirriculum, however stressed on those who take money from the committee to not waste it and all that good stuff.

Wachichi.

New Illuve

12-01-2009, 16:23

To return to why the Holy Empire of New Illuve feels that this Proposal is essentially empty and of little to no true merit for those nations that would and should be impacted by it:

While the aim is noble and to be encourage, the simple fact is that there is no substance upon which to work from. Informing that language arts, with more specific details as to what falls under that category, is required is only the start. One must also give objectives that will be taught, or a goal that needs to be achieved; either would be sufficient but at least one is necessary.

Furthermore, there is nothing here regarding quality. There are no requirements for teachers, teaching material, teaching location, or the teaching environment. There is nothing for establishing if education is even going on, let alone to an "acceptable" standard - which is also not dealt with.

To simplify this Proposal:

Introduction
Article I: Definitions
Article II: Juveniles will be provided education
Article III: Education shall be in these fields
Article IV: These are minimums, and nations should feel free to exceed them
Article V: Juveniles with disabilities must also be educated
Article VI: Help is available
Article VII: Creates a new level bureaucracy
Article VIII: Conditions for financial aid

Let us consider the following thought experiment. A nation wishes to comply to this Proposal in word only, and ignore the spirit. "Adequate level" is defined as "so cheaply possible" and as necessary to meet the definition in Article Ia. Education needs to be provided between the ages of six to 12. Therefore:

Every five years and 364 days a drunk is pulled off the streets, provided a script to read on national television at 3 am, and tells the pupils watching that "1+1=2 and there is your arithmetic lesson." Subtitles are provided for the deaf. For those that cannot afford a television, one has been set up outside for them, assuming the Arctic blizzard hasn't covered it in snow.

Can the honoured Dr. Castro please point out where the letter of this Proposal has not been adhered to?

The Holy Empire also questions whether or not primary education is the appropriate place for "preparing oneself for mature life" and if that is even attainable within the time frame set out within this Proposal. Or how the required subjects can even approach what is necessary to be prepared for the plethora of problems a mature life encounters.

Snefaldia

12-01-2009, 18:21

Every five years and 364 days a drunk is pulled off the streets, provided a script to read on national television at 3 am, and tells the pupils watching that "1+1=2 and there is your arithmetic lesson." Subtitles are provided for the deaf. For those that cannot afford a television, one has been set up outside for them, assuming the Arctic blizzard hasn't covered it in snow.

This is a brilliant idea, and my government will send a fruit basket to thank you for proposing it.

N.T.
etc.

New Illuve

12-01-2009, 18:41

The Holy Empire of New Illuve thanks the honored Ambassador of Snefaldia. The token shall be passed on to the Avatar with the Ambassador's compliments.

Glen-Rhodes

12-01-2009, 21:52

Semantics are important. In this case, a proper consideration of the semantics makes the difference between an effective, directed piece of legislation and something rather more unfocused and less useful.How is this legislation not directed? It's about education. It mandates minimum childhood courses that impart basic knowledge, provides financial aid, and assists in creating standards. It does so because we believe that "education promotes economic and social growth". We obviously must want to educate people, so that we can promote economic and social growth, and we are going to do that by mandating minimum childhood courses that impart basic knowledge, providing financial aid, and assisting in the creation of standards.

How one might get that we're giving away free steak dinners is beyond me. (Of course, I am joking with this last remark, but my point should get across. It really takes not being able to put one and one together, and getting two, to not understand the direction and purpose of this proposal. No offense to you, Ambassador.)

changing "must" to "should", would stress the need to attendance but allow individual nations to mandate it or not mandate it. Hence, optional, which is the exact reason why I'm not going to do it.

and i see no other solution than to entrust the committee with the powers i propose. remember, this is a 'mystical committee who's members come from air'. so it's not that serious.Committees are more important than you make them to be, Ambassador. I'm sure the General Accounting Office would be insulted by you saying that their work "is not that serious".

why will we change the structure of successful education systems if they meet the intended results? doesn't seem very logical.Glen-Rhodes had perfectly acceptable child labor laws, yet the Restrictions on Child Labor didn't bother to step around our toes. Our workplace safety requirements were top notch, but Workplace Safety Standards Act didn't take that in to mind. The same thing for Fair Criminal Trial, Child Protection Act, Sexual Privacy Act, and all the other WA resolutions that deal with implementing new standards, rights, and freedoms.

So, forgive me if I don't think I should have to entertain the notion that forcing successful systems to change, to systems that should be just as successful, is a giant no-no.

it should only apply to those nations who's education system is inadequate. it's name should be changed to "Failed Education Act" or something of the sort ...I am not going to scrap this legislation, after months of debate and hours upon hours of writing, simply because some nations are inconvenienced.

This is really about principle, here. No World Assembly resolution that introduces new standards, rights, or freedoms exempts nations that already have successful versions of these standards, rights, or freedoms. I count at least thirteen of these resolution. Why is it that this proposal has been subjected to this kind of criticism? Why should it have to be changed, yet those thirteen resolutions are completely acceptable? This kind of bureaucratic hypocrisy is not entertaining in the least.

While the aim is noble and to be encourage, the simple fact is that there is no substance upon which to work from. Informing that language arts, with more specific details as to what falls under that category, is required is only the start. One must also give objectives that will be taught, or a goal that needs to be achieved; either would be sufficient but at least one is necessary.Which consensus dictates is unacceptable. Article III has gone through more revisions than I'm guessing you've read. There have been many debates about what extent the course definitions ought to go to; when does it become the World Assembly dictating curriculum?

Furthermore, there is nothing here regarding quality. There are no requirements for teachers, teaching material, teaching location, or the teaching environment. There is nothing for establishing if education is even going on, let alone to an "acceptable" standard - which is also not dealt with.The history of this proposal spans across three different proposals: the Global Education Act, the Universal Education Standards Act, and this one, the Primary Education Act. The one that concerns this response is the Universal Education Standards Act. In that proposal, the WAEC (World Assembly Education Committee) was created to compile standards of education. The short story is, we are here today, and the WAEC no longer exists

There are holes in every resolution, and this one will not be immune. Because no agreement came of setting universal standards, standards are set on a nation-by-nation basis, only upon request. Because the argument that World Assembly shouldn't write curriculum won over the argument that it should, there are considerable loopholes that can, and probably will, be abused. There is no way to completely, one hundred percent, prevent this abuse.

Though, I would be more enthusiastic about responding to you if you took yourself a bit more seriously. Your example is not realistic, and I'd encourage to hold yourself to a higher standard and at least admit so before you give it. You started off on the right note that "adequate level" could mean "as cheaply as possible". Though, I might ask how you describe level of knowledge in a monetary way.

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

Wachichi

12-01-2009, 23:14

i see your points partner, and sorry for using another nation to state it,

i'll agree to your arguments, and we'll move on, however, i would have you know that you are not the only one working " after months of debate and hours upon hours of writing,". you aren't the only one working on it. also, we should recognize the other contributors to the debate.

Wachichi

Glen-Rhodes

12-01-2009, 23:19

...i would have you know that you are not the only one working " after months of debate and hours upon hours of writing,". you aren't the only one working on it. also, we should recognize the other contributors to the debate.
I wouldn't, and didn't, suggest such a thing, Ambassador. All participants in the debate have been valuable. It has been quite a long time since the World Assembly has seen such a hotly debated proposal, and I hope that more will come.

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

Snefaldia

12-01-2009, 23:19

Which consensus dictates is unacceptable. Article III has gone through more revisions than I'm guessing you've read. There have been many debates about what extent the course definitions ought to go to; when does it become the World Assembly dictating curriculum?

If the honored ambassador is truly committed to principle in this legislation, what would it matter the feelings of the community if changes to increase substance were affected? The Illuvian (?) representative is quite right- without a definition of minimum standards you've failed to meet the burden of acceptability for the GA. Certainly the resolution as it is does something, namely creating a committee and saying "this is what you should teach your people. What are these things? Oh, I can't be arsed to tell you."

Though, I would be more enthusiastic about responding to you if you took yourself a bit more seriously. Your example is not realistic, and I'd encourage to hold yourself to a higher standard and at least admit so before you give it. You started off on the right note that "adequate level" could mean "as cheaply as possible". Though, I might ask how you describe level of knowledge in a monetary way.

This is absolutely the wrong way to answer his example, as it suggests you are completely unfamiliar or at least ignorant of the many unscrupulous and oppressive nations that will attempt such a scheme. My god, it's common for nations to remove themselves from the World Assembly and place satellite puppets in for the express purposes of circumventing legislation they dislike- some even have ministries devoted entirely to finding loopholes and exploiting them.

Without existing education legislation to work with, the only way to avoid such a situation as described is to either define your terms or follow this with a more concise education act, which will be twice as difficult and possibly borderline illegal.

N.T.
etc.

Glen-Rhodes

12-01-2009, 23:34

If the honored ambassador is truly committed to principle in this legislation, what would it matter the feelings of the community if changes to increase substance were affected? The Illuvian (?) representative is quite right- without a definition of minimum standards you've failed to meet the burden of acceptability for the GA. Certainly the resolution as it is does something, namely creating a committee and saying "this is what you should teach your people. What are these things? Oh, I can't be arsed to tell you."Why should it matter? Because the World Assembly isn't unilateral. No resolution should be brought to vote without input from the other members of this organization. What one person does affects every nation here. The argument against standards was overwhelming. It was more than just an argument about national sovereignty, but an argument about practicality and feasibility. Creating a single universal standard is impossible in such a diverse organization. You would know this had you read the debates on the ancestors of this resolution. I know that it's asking a lot, but reading past debates, especially when they are referred in responses to you, is kind of essential.

That being said, I'm not going to explain in detail why this resolution doesn't write curriculum. I've said that many nations felt that it was unacceptable for the World Assembly to do so. Now, it's your job to go back and read that debate, if you want specific information.

...it suggests you are completely unfamiliar or at least ignorant of the many unscrupulous and oppressive nations that will attempt such a scheme.
I'm not going to entertain every cockeyed, obscure, and unlikely possibility of abuse. No doubt that we would be here for the next ten years if I do so. The Ambassador was well on his way to a respectable criticism, if he had simply left out the outlandish examples. "What's to stop nations from defining 'adequate level' as 'so cheaply possible', thus resulting in extremely inferior/unsatisfactory education?" would have been an excellent example of a possible loophole. "What's to stop nations from forcing drunkards to read single-line lessons on national television at ungodly hours, and calling this education?" is not.

...or follow this with a more concise education act, which will be twice as difficult and possibly borderline illegal. Only if the 'follow-up' resolution is about primary education. Otherwise, you've hit the head on the nail. The plan is to, sometime in the future, introduce secondary and post-secondary education acts. Though, that would be in the far future, and they probably wouldn't resemble this act at all.

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

Urgench

12-01-2009, 23:42

I wouldn't, and didn't, suggest such a thing, Ambassador. All participants in the debate have been valuable. It has been quite a long time since the World Assembly has seen such a hotly debated proposal, and I hope that more will come.

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

So now you turn upon your co-author Dr Castro, and all those states who have wasted many hours of their time in trying to prevent your delegation from destroying what is good and replacing it with mediocrity.

Your assertion in earlier posts that the purpose of education is economic in nature, that "education promotes economic and social growth" is horrifying in the extreme. It presumes that living human beings are programmable, that they may be manipulated by ruling elites into actions those elites find most useful.

Where is the actual human being in this misconception ? Where is the individual's personal fulfillment and happiness addressed ? Are our children to be viewed in light of their possible future contribution to the economy of our states alone, regardless of their own personal mental and psychological well being ?

The growth and development of the individual is a complicated and unique process which must be nourished and protected with as much breadth of learning and experience as can be seen to be of benefit to the individual in question.

We are all of us entitled to explore the world around us and make of it what we wish regardless of the possible benefit to our national economy.

This is the entire fault at the core of this statute. The delegation of Glen Rhodes has a disturbing and warped attitude toward the early development of the individual and it permeates their entire statute like a toxin.

If this statute comes to vote it will represent an serious injury to the intellectual well being of this organisation's citizenry.

Yours,

New Illuve

12-01-2009, 23:48

Though, I would be more enthusiastic about responding to you if you took yourself a bit more seriously. Your example is not realistic, and I'd encourage to hold yourself to a higher standard and at least admit so before you give it.

The honored Dr. Castro may wish to review the concept of "reductio ad absurdum" or "to take a position to the logical extreme to see if the conclusions still hold". This is an time-honored and well respected method of testing a proposition. In this case, it was intended to show that the Proposal, as writen, can be trivially circumvented - and was apparently successful.

The example given was in response to the honored Dr. Castro seeking information on the loopholes in this Proposal. Those were given, and in an absurd form for effect, again to show the triviality.

The problems cited are not merely "loopholes" but entire gaps that gut this Proposal of any true meaning, and will fail to bring any education to those that most desparately need it by allowing nations who do not wish to education the children to continue to do so with nothing more than a minimum of work.

In this case, the Holy Empire would submit that no Proposal now would be better than one that cements in stone the ability of a nation to not allow children a true education.

Zarquon Froods

13-01-2009, 02:44

I most fully agree with the Illuvean ambassador. Any resolution that leaves any item contained in it to anything less than a strict interpretation is in fact FLAWED. If the wording does not allow for the strict adherance to the law adressed in its intent, the law itself is left to an open interpretation that can and will make this resolution useless. And just as was previously stated, no law is better than a flawed one that will essentially block any legislation pertaining to the subject.

Congratulations, you have successfully made perhaps the most complicated proposal in this assembly's history.

Gobbannium

13-01-2009, 03:38

How is this legislation not directed?
We suggest that the honoured ambassador needs to read what his proposal actually says, rather than what he intends it to mean. In particular, he should note the guidance given to the committee which shall determine the standards to be set -- or rather the lack of such guidance. Such-and-such courses shall be taught, but what these courses are intended to achieve -- their purpose, in other words -- is entirely absent. Without such guidance, any standards that are set will necessarily be arbitrary.

Glen-Rhodes

13-01-2009, 04:18

Where is the actual human being in this misconception ? Where is the individual's personal fulfillment and happiness addressed ? Are our children to be viewed in light of their possible future contribution to the economy of our states alone, regardless of their own personal mental and psychological well being ?In the 'social' part of "economic and social growth", I would imagine. Humans aren't simply assets on a balance sheet to us, as you say we think they are. Economic growth is an incentive to invest in education; it is a fringe benefit. Social growth ought to be the driving force of this investment, but for certain governments, money is more useful than people.

The honored Dr. Castro may wish to review the concept of "reductio ad absurdum" or "to take a position to the logical extreme to see if the conclusions still hold". This is an time-honored and well respected method of testing a proposition. In this case, it was intended to show that the Proposal, as writen, can be trivially circumvented - and was apparently successful. Perhaps if the premise was that this resolution is ironclad, and has no loopholes, your use of reductio ad absurdum would be correct. But, the premise is not that. But, I'll play along. You've found that when taken to the logical extreme, the resolution does not hold up. What now?

You cannot institute standards, and you cannot write curriculum, as consensus says that those two things are either infeasible or unacceptable. What do you do to ensure that this resolution "has substance", when the two things that you say give it substance are restricted?

We suggest that the honoured ambassador needs to read what his proposal actually says, rather than what he intends it to mean. In particular, he should note the guidance given to the committee which shall determine the standards to be set -- or rather the lack of such guidance. Such-and-such courses shall be taught, but what these courses are intended to achieve -- their purpose, in other words -- is entirely absent. Without such guidance, any standards that are set will necessarily be arbitrary.So now achievement and purpose are the same thing.

Guiding the committees in the creation of standards may prove just as fruitless as attempting to create universal standards. Which guidelines span across all systems? Little, you will find.

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

Urgench

13-01-2009, 04:39

In the 'social' part of "economic and social growth", I would imagine. Humans aren't simply assets on a balance sheet to us, as you say we think they are. Economic growth is an incentive to invest in education; it is a fringe benefit. Social growth ought to be the driving force of this investment, but for certain governments, money is more useful than people.

And what on earth is "social growth" anyway Dr Castro ? And who are governments to believe it is their right to shape and mould the minds of their people ? Surely governments are merely conduits of the will of the people they should represent. This is as true of an Autocracy as it is true of a commune.

If education is therefore to be organised by the state it should be done to suit the people it educates, not the grand schemes of those who have forgotten that they are not gods and are in fact merely functionaries.

Our people would bring down swift electoral justice upon any overweening executive which had the ridiculous pomposity to presume it knew better than they how to organise and direct their own lives. This is as true of education as it is of what they do with their own bodies or of how they fix their own consciences.

Do you presume to tell billions of people what they should want to know Dr Castro ? And what they should desire to make of this knowledge ?

Yours e.t.c. ,

Gobbannium

13-01-2009, 19:11

So now achievement and purpose are the same thing.

No. 'Intention for achievement' and 'purpose' are the same thing, though we grant that first phrase is not so easily understood shorn of context. Please be more careful in your reading, Dr Castro.

Guiding the committees in the creation of standards may prove just as fruitless as attempting to create universal standards. Which guidelines span across all systems? Little, you will find.
Were this contention true, your resolution would achieve nothing useful. Fortunately, we have indicated several times now that it is not true.

Glen-Rhodes

14-01-2009, 00:34

And what on earth is "social growth" anyway Dr Castro ?Growth in any aspect of society, Ambassador Mongkha. The enrichment of culture, the increase in everyday knowledge, a leap in interest of things... anything, really, that contributes to the growth of people-related aspects of society.

And who are governments to believe it is their right to shape and mould the minds of their people ? Surely governments are merely conduits of the will of the people they should represent. This is as true of an Autocracy as it is true of a commune.Governments that aren't protected under this legislation. Though, that last bit isn't always true; dictatorships, for example.

If education is therefore to be organised by the state it should be done to suit the people it educates, not the grand schemes of those who have forgotten that they are not gods and are in fact merely functionaries.I couldn't agree more. My views probably differ from yours in that I believe that legislative bodies are more prepared and capable of doing so.

Do you presume to tell billions of people what they should want to know Dr Castro ? And what they should desire to make of this knowledge ?No, I absolutely do not. This legislation, as well as my paused effort in informed thought, makes this very clear.

Were this contention true, your resolution would achieve nothing useful. Fortunately, we have indicated several times now that it is not true.
Well, I am stumped as to how to go about it. Mind extending any substantive ideas? As I currently see it, despite any efforts made to get me to see otherwise, instituting what standards are isn't possible. I cannot write "such standards will be A, B, and C", and have those standards be applicable to the success of every single education system under the World Assembly's watch. This is why I opted for the suggestion that the World Assembly Education Services committee assist nations in creating standards, either locally or internationally.

Now, I'm probably taking a dangerous route in assuming that nations carry out the process of creating standards in good faith, as they are supposed to (WAR #2 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13835552&postcount=4)). However, the committee will carry out it's duties in good faith, but that might be undermined, since their duties only extend to those nations that seek assistance.

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

Urgench

14-01-2009, 01:35

Growth in any aspect of society, Ambassador Mongkha. The enrichment of culture, the increase in everyday knowledge, a leap in interest of things... anything, really, that contributes to the growth of people-related aspects of society.

And this is achieved by straitjacketing an individual's personal growth and directing it according the detailed theoretical biases of government is it Dr Castro ?

Governments that aren't protected under this legislation. Though, that last bit isn't always true; dictatorships, for example.

Even dictatorships indulge in the pretence of rulership for the benefit of the people. This statute does not even pretend to care what the individual desires to do, or how they wish to be educated or what they wish to do with this education.

How can governments have rights independently of the rights of the people they govern Dr Castro ? The very reason government exists is to do the work of governance for the people, on their behalf, at their behest ( and this is true even of dictators, who may be deposed by rebellions after all ) and by an extension of their own personal prerogative.

I couldn't agree more. My views probably differ from yours in that I believe that legislative bodies are more prepared and capable of doing so.

So you genuinely believe that legislative bodies are the instructors of their people do you Dr Castro ? Legislators are the font of all wisdom and they know better than those for whom they legislate how they should lead their lives ?

No, I absolutely do not. This legislation, as well as my paused effort in informed thought, makes this very clear.

Both statutes show nothing of the kind. They betray a paternalistic, meddlesome and shortsighted philosophy which is an insult to human freedom. Your "paused effort in informed thought" is either the description of this philosophy or the risible, patronising, oxymoronic, pseudo-statute which it birthed.

Yours,

Wachichi

14-01-2009, 02:02

ambassador of Urgench,

by saying it promotes economic or social economic growth we aren't imply what you have said. it's just a fact, that with a more educated population, there tends to be economic growth. with a more intelligent population economic or social economic prosperity may occur. that's all and nothing more.

so there are way to many comments to read since my last one. what are the basic issues being debated right now? would anyone be so kind as to bullet them for me in a response? much abliged.

Wachichi

Gobbannium

14-01-2009, 03:33

Well, I am stumped as to how to go about it. Mind extending any substantive ideas? As I currently see it, despite any efforts made to get me to see otherwise, instituting what standards are isn't possible. I cannot write "such standards will be A, B, and C", and have those standards be applicable to the success of every single education system under the World Assembly's watch. This is why I opted for the suggestion that the World Assembly Education Services committee assist nations in creating standards, either locally or internationally.
That is correct thinking. The WAES committee however needs some guidance, which would be given by a strong statement of the purpose for which primary education is intended. This is why we continue to belabour the point that attempting to define the purpose of primary education as "the achieving of standards A, B and C" is circular and useless to you.

Glen-Rhodes

14-01-2009, 04:02

Yours,I understand all of your objections, and the reasons behind them. I simply disagree that your philosophy is practical and should be the one used in this type of legislation (although, you may feel that this type of legislation shouldn't exist in the first place; but, your thoughts are misguided). Let's face it, the system of education in Urgench is not a main concern, nor even a priority to my writing of this legislation. This is because that system is successful; whether or not it is efficient is another story altogether, which would be answered by its ability to adapt to new international law. The priority here is those nations in which education is sub-standard and downright offensive. The very last thing that you want to do is prescribe them to a free-form, liberal education philosophy, that may work in advanced nations, but has little to no chance of ever successfully starting in others.

Many delegations do not cross the river, and realize that it's not too good on the other side. How little I see the problems of the World Assembly's less well-off states in discussion is troublesome, and how much I see it brushed aside because of it's burden is equally, if not more, troublesome. Although it is not the intention of the delegation of Urgench to do so, they are, indeed brushing aside these problems. It's probably of no fault to you yourself, but instead the circumstances in which you were raised. You and I have had the benefit of growing up and living in relatively comfortable places. It's not surprising that you can't see the obvious flaw in letting unsuccessful nations completely handle the rebuilding of their educational structure. A failure continues to fail. It's harsh, but it's the truth. Structure, organization, and oversight are key to building and rebuilding educational structures over failed and non-existent ones.

That is correct thinking. The WAES committee however needs some guidance, which would be given by a strong statement of the purpose for which primary education is intended. This is why we continue to belabour the point that attempting to define the purpose of primary education as "the achieving of standards A, B and C" is circular and useless to you.

It helps that you've attached this to a tangible cause. Instead of saying that the entire resolution fails because the 'purpose of primary education' is not spelled out, it is now 'the World Assembly Education Services committee fails because the purpose isn't spelled out'. I know that this isn't your intention, but bear with me.

We both disagree on what the actual purpose of primary education is. So far, you've offered that it is a precursor to secondary education; that the purpose of it is to "fit a child for learning". I've offered that the purpose of primary education is to " basic knowledge of subjects". What do these two things have in common? There are, coincidentally, two things that they have in common. They both state that at least part of the purpose is to educate. The also both work with the idea of the first stage in the education process. The only substantial difference that [I]I can see, is that mine doesn't assume that further education exists, and yours does. What differences and similarities do you see?

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

Urgench

14-01-2009, 13:01

I understand all of your objections, and the reasons behind them. I simply disagree that your philosophy is practical and should be the one used in this type of legislation (although, you may feel that this type of legislation shouldn't exist in the first place; but, your thoughts are misguided). Let's face it, the system of education in Urgench is not a main concern, nor even a priority to my writing of this legislation. This is because that system is successful; whether or not it is efficient is another story altogether, which would be answered by its ability to adapt to new international law. The priority here is those nations in which education is sub-standard and downright offensive. The very last thing that you want to do is prescribe them to a free-form, liberal education philosophy, that may work in advanced nations, but has little to no chance of ever successfully starting in others.

Many delegations do not cross the river, and realize that it's not too good on the other side. How little I see the problems of the World Assembly's less well-off states in discussion is troublesome, and how much I see it brushed aside because of it's burden is equally, if not more, troublesome. Although it is not the intention of the delegation of Urgench to do so, they are, indeed brushing aside these problems. It's probably of no fault to you yourself, but instead the circumstances in which you were raised. You and I have had the benefit of growing up and living in relatively comfortable places. It's not surprising that you can't see the obvious flaw in letting unsuccessful nations completely handle the rebuilding of their educational structure. A failure continues to fail. It's harsh, but it's the truth. Structure, organization, and oversight are key to building and rebuilding educational structures over failed and non-existent ones.

Dr Castro's poverty of expectation is exactly what will keep poor nations undeveloped. We are appalled at the crass condescension inherent in his delegation's education philosophy.

Our education system was introduced into an empire which spans two continents and three subcontinents in which at the time huge levels of disparity existed in income and levels of development. Since its introduction education has been severed from economics and gross income inequality has been eradicated. The fact that we supported our citizens aspirations regardless of their economic background means that poor people no longer needed to have only poor expectations of their future.

This applies to states just as to individuals. Presume that undeveloped states are only capable of low levels of advancement and that is all they will achieve.The paternalism and contempt inherent in this attitude are vicious and destructive.

Do not lecture us on the nature of our upbringings, Dr. Castro, especially when your conclusions about them are based on complete ignorance of the facts pertaining to them. What exactly do you know of them Dr Castro ?

It is deeply unpleasant of Dr Castro to imply that our delegation intentionally or otherwise has no concern for the plight of poorer states. We have worked on and supported numerous statutes of a varied nature, and in all cases have seen the personal well being of every citizen of w.a. states as paramount among the considerations when evaluating their efficacy. To be accused of such disregard by the delegation of Glen Rhodes is especially revolting since it seems that they care little at all for the aspirations and desires of the poor.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Gobbannium

14-01-2009, 23:13

It helps that you've attached this to a tangible cause. Instead of saying that the entire resolution fails because the 'purpose of primary education' is not spelled out, it is now 'the World Assembly Education Services committee fails because the purpose isn't spelled out'. I know that this isn't your intention, but bear with me.
Apparently you know incorrectly; if the committee fails, the resolution fails. We apologise for the confusion apparently caused by our elision of these two steps in recent discussion, but we thought it sufficiently obvious as to not bear restating. We shall make a note to avoid such shorthand in the future.

We both disagree on what the actual purpose of primary education is. So far, you've offered that it is a precursor to secondary education; that the purpose of it is to "fit a child for learning". I've offered that the purpose of primary education is to " basic knowledge of subjects". What do these two things have in common? There are, coincidentally, two things that they have in common. They both state that at least part of the purpose is to educate.
One would rather hope so, given that both are defining a form of education. This would be one reason for our strong dislike of the early age-based definition, which seemed only incidentally concerned with education.

The also both work with the idea of the first stage in the education process.
Again, one would hope so, given that they both seek to define the first stage of the educational process. Any definition that did not meet these criteria would be clearly unfit for purpose.

The only substantial difference that [I]I can see, is that mine doesn't assume that further education exists, and yours does. What differences and similarities do you see?
Since we consider that further education should exist, and that future resolutions should ensure this, we regard this particular difference as a strength.

There is also the matter of what one regards as basic levels of knowledge. We would entirely accept that students should have basic levels of reading and comprehension by the time they cease primary education, and are even prepared to admit that our expections of basic comprehension seem to be well above average. On the other hand, we find basic knowledge of science more troubling, since we don't expect that to be achieved until the middle of the secondary education period. What is actually taught in primary schools, as nearly as we can extract a single "science" strand, is much closer kin to reading comprehension: habits of thought and analysis that will stand the student in good stead when actual scientific principles, processes and methodology are brought in. The small selection of scientific principles and exercises which are used to train these habits could hardly be described as a basic grounding in any one science, never mind science as a whole, quite apart from the fact that they vary from year to year and teacher to teacher. Our definition encompasses this easily, in that the toolkit for learning is clearly provided.

You appear to be nervous that this definition is contingent on what secondary education is expected to be. We would ask you to consider this a strength; is a primary education which does not consider how it dovetails into secondary actually useful?

Wachichi

14-01-2009, 23:45

ambassador,

the primary education that we are providing DOES consider secondary education by teaching:

"language arts, mathematics, history, science, health education, and sex education".

students could learn basic language, math, history, science, health and sex ed as defined by the resolution.

however this resolution doesn't deal with secondary education so i don't understand how we are supposed to 'consider how it dovetails into secondary". if this ever passes, maybe we'll introduce a secondary education proposal and then it's contents could be debated. however this one is limited to primary with the given minimum courses.

Wachichi

Glen-Rhodes

15-01-2009, 03:59

Our education system was introduced into an empire which spans two continents and three subcontinents in which at the time huge levels of disparity existed in income and levels of development. Since its introduction education has been severed from economics and gross income inequality has been eradicated. The fact that we supported our citizens aspirations regardless of their economic background means that poor people no longer needed to have only poor expectations of their future.

This applies to states just as to individuals. Presume that undeveloped states are only capable of low levels of advancement and that is all they will achieve. The paternalism and contempt inherent in this attitude are vicious and destructive.That is all very well, but few governments function like that of Urgench. Perhaps if Urgench controlled the committee's decisions, or completely controlled the education aspect of all states, then the philosophy of Urgench could be applied to all nations. That will never be the case. Simply because it works in Urgench does not mean that it will work in other nations. This is why we opt for a tried and true structured system, with considerable organization and oversight. I did not simply pull this legislation out of my nether-regions.

To assume that class distinction can be eradicated is rather naive. Not only that, but it's irrelevant. Nobody here, but you, has said anything akin to lower states receiving lower education. That goes against everything this resolution legislates, and there's no way that you can manipulate the wording to support such an idea. All the more, economic status is nothing but a means of displaying which nations need this legislation the most.

The notion that paternalism is 'vicious and destruction' is equally naive. The World Assembly follows a paternalistic standard by definition. The fact that nations that vote AGAINST a resolution are still affected by it serves testament to this. The World Assembly creates resolutions for the common good of all it's members, whether some of those members agree with resolutions or not. If that's not paternalism, then I don't know what is.
You appear to be nervous that this definition is contingent on what secondary education is expected to be. We would ask you to consider this a strength; is a primary education which does not consider how it dovetails into secondary actually useful?

If a delegation were to commit to writing a secondary education resolution, I would ease in my belief that the purpose should not assume that secondary education exists. If the purpose is reliant on the notion that it does, but in reality that isn't always the case, then the purpose becomes just as useless as you think the current one is.

It is not that I think secondary education shouldn't exist. I believe it should, and that the World Assembly should take the appropriate actions to mandate it. It's that I don't want to invest in a mandate that isn't guaranteed to exist, unless I sit down and write it myself. I cannot guarantee that I'll have the energy to start this process all over again.

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

Urgench

15-01-2009, 12:22

That is all very well, but few governments function like that of Urgench. Perhaps if Urgench controlled the committee's decisions, or completely controlled the education aspect of all states, then the philosophy of Urgench could be applied to all nations. That will never be the case. Simply because it works in Urgench does not mean that it will work in other nations. This is why we opt for a tried and true structured system, with considerable organization and oversight. I did not simply pull this legislation out of my nether-regions.

Why on earth would it not work elsewhere Dr Castro ? Need we point out that the whole reason our system works is because it allows for the scores of nations, cultures, and peoples of the empire to develop the potential of every individual and the communities they form, as they choose, by intent ? In any event we are not asking for our system to be imposed on the w.a., it is Glen Rhodes which believes its theories so preeminent, so superlative, that they should be imposed on the entire w.a., not Urgench. We are merely asking for those systems which work well to be protected and not overturned or damaged.

To assume that class distinction can be eradicated is rather naive. Not only that, but it's irrelevant. Nobody here, but you, has said anything akin to lower states receiving lower education. That goes against everything this resolution legislates, and there's no way that you can manipulate the wording to support such an idea. All the more, economic status is nothing but a means of displaying which nations need this legislation the most.

It is telling that Dr Castro believes that economics has anything to do with "class", especially since in states with ancient civilisations class rarely has anything to do with money.

How can Dr Castro contend that this resolution does not mandate poor expectations for poorer states ? Dr Castro has admitted that he thinks only richer states could expect to exceed the pitifully low standards of his delegation's statute, and more, he expects those states which have systems which do exceed these standards to damage the systems which have created such excellence in order to allow the states he patronises as incapable of excellence to meet these standards of under achievement.

The notion that paternalism is 'vicious and destruction' is equally naive. The World Assembly follows a paternalistic standard by definition. The fact that nations that vote AGAINST a resolution are still affected by it serves testament to this. The World Assembly creates resolutions for the common good of all it's members, whether some of those members agree with resolutions or not. If that's not paternalism, then I don't know what is.

So democracy is paternalistic is it Dr Castro ? What an absurd contention. Dr Castro's incomprehension of the term "paternalism" is indicative of the reasons his delegation's statute is so woeful.

In this instance the attitude which the delegation of Glen Rhodes displays toward under developed states is paternalistic because it arrogantly presumes that such states are inherently less capable of betterment without treating the citizens of such states like simpletons and imbeciles, and educating them to believe that they are less capable of excellence then the citizens of richer states.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Glen-Rhodes

15-01-2009, 21:35

Why on earth would it not work elsewhere Dr Castro ? Need we point out that the whole reason our system works is because it allows for the scores of nations, cultures, and peoples of the empire to develop the potential of every individual and the communities they form, as they choose, by intent ? In any event we are not asking for our system to be imposed on the w.a., it is Glen Rhodes which believes its theories so preeminent, so superlative, that they should be imposed on the entire w.a., not Urgench. We are merely asking for those systems which work well to be protected and not overturned or damaged.These nations already had the chance to create their own system of education. They have failed, so why should I allow them to try again in legislation that aims to correct their mistakes? Article III is perhaps the best chance that these nations have of rebuilding, restructuring, and revitalizing their education systems.

The single problem with protecting systems that work well, is that 'well' needs to be defined. The obvious definition would draw from the resolution itself: if a system already surpasses the requirements of the resolution, then Article III wouldn't apply. Though, in order for them to surpass these requirements, they would already have to be fulfilling the mandate in Article III. So, that definition wouldn't work for Urgench's system of letting children learn whatever they want, including ignoring subjects that don't pertain to their future wants.

The only other viable option would be to set a certain standard that nations must surpass to be unaffected by Article III. This should sound familiar. The reasons that it's not going to happen should sound familiar, too.

It is telling that Dr Castro believes that economics has anything to do with "class", especially since in states with ancient civilisations class rarely has anything to do with money.Class depends heavily on economics. I cannot think of a single ancient civilization in which 'upper class' did not mean higher economic status, and 'lower class' did not mean lower economic status. Unless your speaking of classless societies... which you shouldn't be, for obvious reasons.

How can Dr Castro contend that this resolution does not mandate poor expectations for poorer states ? Dr Castro has admitted that he thinks only richer states could expect to exceed the pitifully low standards of his delegation's statute, and more, he expects those states which have systems which do exceed these standards to damage the systems which have created such excellence in order to allow the states he patronises as incapable of excellence to meet these standards of under achievement.I've admitted that only advanced states could expect to achieve the quality standards of this resolution right out the door. I've not said a single word about the economic status of a nation limiting it's potential. Any quote that suggest such is nothing but manipulated, taken out of context, or misunderstood.

It's clear that this has boiled down in to one education philosophy versus the other. This is quickly turning in to quite the nasty argument, with the delegation of Urgench, yet again, resorting to insult after insult to try and get their point across. I see your point. I disagree with it.

So democracy is paternalistic is it Dr Castro ? What an absurd contention. Dr Castro's incomprehension of the term "paternalism" is indicative of the reasons his delegation's statute is so woeful.Democracy? No. Republicanism? Yes. The World Assembly is not a democratic organization, but rather a republican organization. Republicanism is inherently paternalistic, and there is nothing wrong with it. You use the term in a derogatory manner, seemingly applying a dictatorial view.

In this instance the attitude which the delegation of Glen Rhodes displays toward under developed states is paternalistic because it arrogantly presumes that such states are inherently less capable of bettermentUnder-developed states are inherently less capable of betterment, if they are left to their own mechanics. If they weren't, then they wouldn't be under-developed. What this resolution does is help better these states in at least one facet of society.

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

Snefaldia

15-01-2009, 22:19

I'm going to go directly to the source; I'm not sure this endless discussion of philosophical application is going to achieve much.

OBSERVING 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 the right to education,

ACKNOWLEDGING that primary education serves the purpose of imparting basic knowledge of subjects,

You will find absolutely no argument from my government in regards to this preamble; with the exception of the word "Posit." It implies that the World Assembly might have the aforementioned responsibility- it is our belief, and obviously the position of the Glen-Rhodes government, that it absolutely does. Perhaps "Affirming" or "Maintaining?"

The World Assembly shall thus:
I) DEFINE the following, solely for the purpose of this resolution:
a) '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.
b) ‘primary education’ as the series of educational courses a person must attend, until they have reached an adequate level of knowledge in required courses; such level of adequacy shall be defined by each nation.

My government's issue lies with the definition of 'primary education,' which I know is the subject of discussion right now. I would like to suggest that, if this resolution's intent is to ensure that all people in WA nations receive a basic education, the definition should more closely define primary education as the minimum of education required for a person to survive and advance in society.

Isn't this generally what primary education is? To provide the groundwork and basic skills for a person?

II) MANDATE that every juvenile shall be provided a primary education that includes the required minimum courses in Article III, free of direct cost to the juveniles 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 juvenile'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.

To dredge up an old point; sex education could really be combined with health education- it's a function of anatomy and proper sexual health is, well, healthy. Further, sex can also be considered a point of "community" relation in regards to the transmission of disease as well as the cultural considerations of childbirth, marriage, and other such related circumstances.

I would also suggest that 'history' be replaced with a broader "social science" category- history is a social science discipline, and it would be much more beneficial to young students to have a broader base in concepts of anthropology, psychology, and history rather than focusing solely on the historical narrative- which is often biases or prejudicial.

IV) ENCOURAGE and PROTECT a nation's choice to go beyond the minimum required courses set in this Act.

V) MANDATE that all World Assembly member nations make primary education readily available to people of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of standard-level brain activity.

VI) ESTABLISH the World Assembly Education Services Committee, which is tasked with assisting in:
a) 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
b) the establishment of national and international education research organizations
c) the establishment and maintenance of local, national, and international educator training programs.

VII) EXTEND the duties of the General Accounting Office to include approving, denying, and generally managing all requests for financial aid, in regards to the mandates and programs of this Act, based on the qualifications of the requesting World Assembly member nation as written in Article VIII, and the fiscal responsibility of those requests.

VIII) DECLARE that a World Assembly 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.

We would support these goals.

Nemo Taranton
Minister of W.A. Affairs

Urgench

15-01-2009, 22:30

These nations already had the chance to create their own system of education. They have failed, so why should I allow them to try again in legislation that aims to correct their mistakes? Article III is perhaps the best chance that these nations have of rebuilding, restructuring, and revitalizing their education systems.

We assure you, Dr Castro, this resolution is stultifying and will represent a serious impediment to the development of indigenous national systems of education, it will neuter national innovation in education and pollute the lives of billions of young citizens of world assembly member states.

The single problem with protecting systems that work well, is that 'well' needs to be defined. The obvious definition would draw from the resolution itself: if a system already surpasses the requirements of the resolution, then Article III wouldn't apply. Though, in order for them to surpass these requirements, they would already have to be fulfilling the mandate in Article III. So, that definition wouldn't work for Urgench's system of letting children learn whatever they want, including ignoring subjects that don't pertain to their future wants.

Our entire point has been that the delegation of Glen Rhodes has already made up its mind as to what is should be the marker of a successful education system and refuses to accept the possibility of other standards even existing. The definition of success which Dr Castro et al so fervently believe in has nothing to do with an individuals personal well being, their own sense of satisfaction, or their personal desires what so ever. The individual in this conception is seen as a programmable device which if exposed to certain processes will be able to complete certain "socially desirable" tasks in gratitude for its programming.

This conception is nightmarish and we cannot allow it to be promoted without challenge.

Class depends heavily on economics. I cannot think of a single ancient civilization in which 'upper class' did not mean higher economic status, and 'lower class' did not mean lower economic status. Unless your speaking of classless societies... which you shouldn't be, for obvious reasons.

One's class is defined by a multitude of factors, economic situation is most often a byproduct of one's class. Except perhaps in a Plutocracy, which form of society is odious in any case.

I've admitted that only advanced states could expect to achieve the quality standards of this resolution right out the door. I've not said a single word about the economic status of a nation limiting it's potential. Any quote that suggest such is nothing but manipulated, taken out of context, or misunderstood.

This statement is utterly mendacious, Dr Castro. Even within this contribution you have damned poorer states as being incapable of improving their education systems without the deadening influence of your own statute.

It's clear that this has boiled down in to one education philosophy versus the other. This is quickly turning in to quite the nasty argument, with the delegation of Urgench, yet again, resorting to insult after insult to try and get their point across. I see your point. I disagree with it.

We have insulted no one, point to a specific instance of an insult directed at a person, as opposed to a critique of a concept or statement e.t.c.

Dr Castro you have signally failed to understand our point, that is the cause of the current dispute between us. It has been the work of months and with no reward in concurrent comprehension on Dr Castro's part to try to painstakingly elucidate our position. It has left a sour taste in our mouths.

Democracy? No. Republicanism? Yes. The World Assembly is not a democratic organization, but rather a republican organization. Republicanism is inherently paternalistic, and there is nothing wrong with it. You use the term in a derogatory manner, seemingly applying a dictatorial view.

Paternalism is absolutely and inherently dictatorial, that cannot be in question. How else could paternalism function without dictate

Under-developed states are inherently less capable of betterment, if they are left to their own mechanics. If they weren't, then they wouldn't be under-developed. What this resolution does is help better these states in at least one facet of society.

And here is another blatant example of Dr Castro's mendacity. So you do not believe that poorer states are only capable of poorer achievement do you not Dr Castro ?

Yours,

Wachichi

15-01-2009, 23:44

Urgench

16-01-2009, 00:46

ambassador of Snefaldia,

you make good points, and also i thank you for bringing up the debate to the resolution presented. this philosophical debate will never end because each person has their own beliefs and are not very much helpful. it has distracted us from the initial proposal. infact, you guys haven't even referenced the resolution in a while.

Wachichi.

back on topic please.

We assure you, Dr Castro, this resolution is stultifying and will represent a serious impediment to the development of indigenous national systems of education, it will neuter national innovation in education and pollute the lives of billions of young citizens of world assembly member states.

Honoured Ambassador we have referenced this resolution on numerous occasions, above is an example, how could we not not when this resolution represents such a grave threat to our system of education ?

We are encouraged however by the suggested revisions of the honoured and esteemed Ambassador for Snefaldia, which may offer a route towards a better statute.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Wachichi

16-01-2009, 03:42

ambassador,

the matter at hand between your objections and this bill, is that it would change your education system (even though it's successful, as you put it) however, how does it hold up compared to the international community. i'm not challenging your education system, just saying that success is only measured with a short stick, when it should be done with the long one.

your objections are basically this (i apologize if i misrepresent you're stances): My nation's education system is successful, and your resolution would impose a different structure upon me even though we succeed.

however, our entire purpose of the resolution is to BUILD a viable structure(though you may not feel this one is the right one). if a nation has a broken education system (or none at all) then this resolution will help it build the infrastructure.

based on what i know, your education system is applicable to different people in different places, however, ALL people need to know language, math, history, sciences..etc. so i still don't understand your objections. the minimum cirriculum that we are proposing do NOT impose itself on your education system so long as you provide this logical minimums for your constituency. so please, for the sake of debate, make your objections as to how this proposal through it's language/intent imposes itself upon your education system.

it never establishes any institutions, but only tells nations:"Meet these minimums as you can. if you can't we're here to help". what's wrong with that?

Wachichi.

Gobbannium

16-01-2009, 04:48

I'm going to go directly to the source; I'm not sure this endless discussion of philosophical application is going to achieve much.
Given that while we are discussing the matter we are clearly not communicating, we must regretfully concur.

You will find absolutely no argument from my government in regards to this preamble; with the exception of the word "Posit." It implies that the World Assembly might have the aforementioned responsibility- it is our belief, and obviously the position of the Glen-Rhodes government, that it absolutely does. Perhaps "Affirming" or "Maintaining?"
Perhaps "Asserting" might be closer to the intent?

My government's issue lies with the definition of 'primary education,' which I know is the subject of discussion right now. I would like to suggest that, if this resolution's intent is to ensure that all people in WA nations receive a basic education, the definition should more closely define primary education as the minimum of education required for a person to survive and advance in society.
We would contend that that is what secondary education is.

Isn't this generally what primary education is? To provide the groundwork and basic skills for a person?
This is a different contention, and we refer the honoured ambassador to the preceding several pages of semantic discussion as to why we have some reservations on the matter.

Glen-Rhodes

16-01-2009, 05:23

We assure you, Dr Castro, this resolution is stultifying and will represent a serious impediment to the development of indigenous national systems of education, it will neuter national innovation in education and pollute the lives of billions of young citizens of world assembly member states.Perhaps if these 'indigenous national systems of education' could get their collective acts together, along with the likely failing governments they're propped up on, then international law wouldn't have to step in. Given the trend of failing governments continually failing, I'm not going to invest a single Glen-Rhodes Dollar in the idea that they will magically, without international law forcing them to, fulfill their responsibility to provide education. If it is innovation you seek, then you need not look at those systems, because it's unlikely that there is any to find.

The individual in this conception is seen as a programmable device which if exposed to certain processes will be able to complete certain "socially desirable" tasks in gratitude for its programming.Social engineering is not as undesirable as you make it out to be. You apply a negative connotation to the practice, when, in reality, virtually all law has the effect of changing societal behaviors, and can be deemed social engineering to some extent. The World Assembly is likely the largest contributor to social engineering. WARs #4, 7, 9, 18, 19, 20, 23, 27, 29, and 30 blatantly intend to change social behavior on a large scale; in fact, your own anti-discrimination proposal is social engineering at it's best. The rest, with one or two exceptions, are less obvious in their intention, but also practice some form of social engineering.

On a large scale, the view that people are 'programmable devices' is inevitable. The intent on what the desired affect on populations is, is what defines whether or not the social engineering taking place is to the benefit or dismay of those populations. Furthering education -- which is what the proposal undoubtedly does, no matter how many times you attempt to twist its language, intent, and meaning -- is a benefit.

This statement is utterly mendacious, Dr Castro. Even within this contribution you have damned poorer states as being incapable of improving their education systems without the deadening influence of your own statute.From the first day of drafting until now, show me a trend of improvement. When you can show me that, I will entertain the idea that failing states, when business is done as usual, don't continue to fail.

Paternalism is absolutely and inherently dictatorial, that cannot be in question. How else could paternalism function without dictatePaternalism is only dictatorial when it is used in conjunction with a dictatorship. Do you presume to say the World Assembly is a dictatorship, Ambassador Mongkha? The context is of utmost importance.

And here is another blatant example of Dr Castro's mendacity. So you do not believe that poorer states are only capable of poorer achievement do you not Dr Castro ?When left to their own devices, aiming to do nothing but business as usual, failing states are no doubt incapable of improvement. Poor states are no doubt incapable of improvement on the basis of the lack of capital.

You will find absolutely no argument from my government in regards to this preamble; with the exception of the word "Posit." It implies that the World Assembly might have the aforementioned responsibility- it is our belief, and obviously the position of the Glen-Rhodes government, that it absolutely does. Perhaps "Affirming" or "Maintaining?"'Affirming' is probably better word choice. Thank you for your suggestion, Ambassador.

To dredge up an old point; sex education could really be combined with health education- it's a function of anatomy and proper sexual health is, well, healthy. Further, sex can also be considered a point of "community" relation in regards to the transmission of disease as well as the cultural considerations of childbirth, marriage, and other such related circumstances.Ms. Benson, the arbiter of all things regarding sex education, wouldn't think so. The problem is the possibility of sex education being insufficiently taught, or even completely bypassed. While the two can certainly be combined, it is much safer to mandate sex education separately.

I would also suggest that 'history' be replaced with a broader "social science" category- history is a social science discipline, and it would be much more beneficial to young students to have a broader base in concepts of anthropology, psychology, and history rather than focusing solely on the historical narrative- which is often biases or prejudicial.Perhaps 'social studies' is a better subject, over 'social science'? One cannot teach all social sciences in however many years, but social studies is the broad study of human behavior, both past and present. "The study of history, geography, civics, sociology, economics, and other social-science subjects, especially in primary and secondary school" is the overview of social studies for Glen-Rhodes' primary and secondary courses.

We are in agreement with Prince Rhodri Mawr that the delegation of Snefaldia should read the past debates on the meaning of primary education, so that they can give a better informed opinion on the matter.

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

Urgench

16-01-2009, 13:46

Perhaps if these 'indigenous national systems of education' could get their collective acts together, along with the likely failing governments they're propped up on, then international law wouldn't have to step in. Given the trend of failing governments continually failing, I'm not going to invest a single Glen-Rhodes Dollar in the idea that they will magically, without international law forcing them to, fulfill their responsibility to provide education. If it is innovation you seek, then you need not look at those systems, because it's unlikely that there is any to find.

We are simply horrified by the arrogance of this statement. Force should be replaced with encouragement, contempt with cooperation, condescension with respect.

Doubtless there might be aspects of the culture or society of Glen Rhodes which other states might find objectionable, indeed from certain perspectives even reprehensible. Do we see those states flagrantly vilifying Glen Rhodes, denigrating it, calling it failed, writing laws which imply that Glen Rhodes is incapable of self betterment ?

No, is the answer.

Social engineering is not as undesirable as you make it out to be. You apply a negative connotation to the practice, when, in reality, virtually all law has the effect of changing societal behaviors, and can be deemed social engineering to some extent. The World Assembly is likely the largest contributor to social engineering. WARs #4, 7, 9, 18, 19, 20, 23, 27, 29, and 30 blatantly intend to change social behavior on a large scale; in fact, your own anti-discrimination proposal is social engineering at it's best. The rest, with one or two exceptions, are less obvious in their intention, but also practice some form of social engineering.

The law is an expression of the conscience of society. When used by elites for the purposes of social engineering, without reference to the conscience of society the law becomes a tool of oppression and unjust.

The anti-discrimination statute we are working on is not social engineering, it is an expression of the conscience of the societies which form the membership of this organisation. This is exactly why we have allowed the drafting process of it to go on as long as it has, to allow as much input from as many states as possible, and to explore as many attitude towards discrimination as possible.

No member state which has chosen to involve itself in that project has been as outraged and insulted as have some of those involved in this debate, and all ( in line with its purpose ) have been treated as equal in the process.

On a large scale, the view that people are 'programmable devices' is inevitable. The intent on what the desired affect on populations is, is what defines whether or not the social engineering taking place is to the benefit or dismay of those populations. Furthering education -- which is what the proposal undoubtedly does, no matter how many times you attempt to twist its language, intent, and meaning -- is a benefit.

We assure you that such an attitude is very far from inevitable. To use Urgench as an example, it is absolutely possible to treat society as the sum of the individuals which form it and to address the needs of the specific individual as the cure for wider social problems.

The very reason the empire has existed for 1500 years is because all its citizens are regarded as equals and they may approach the institutions of the empire knowing that they will be treated with respect for and interest in their personal concerns and desires.

To treat society as a hive of bees, which is the approach of Dr Castro (as outlined above ) is to deny human individuality, to insult human dignity and to obviate human freedom.

Paternalism is only dictatorial when it is used in conjunction with a dictatorship. Do you presume to say the World Assembly is a dictatorship, Ambassador Mongkha? The context is of utmost importance.

The context is essentially rendered immaterial by the application of the paternalism. The world assembly would be made a dictatorship if it behaved in a paternalistic manner. If it does not behave in a paternalistic manner, and instead uses its power to express the conscience of the populations of its member states then it is not a dictatorship.

When left to their own devices, aiming to do nothing but business as usual, failing states are no doubt incapable of improvement. Poor states are no doubt incapable of improvement on the basis of the lack of capital.

Who has advocated the status quo Dr Castro ? Certainly not us. The encouragement and funding of national innovation and the promotion and protection of those aspects of any system which have positive outcomes for the individual are manifestly efficacious.

And, might we say, if Dr Castro merely thinks that poorer states "are no doubt incapable of improvement on the basis of the lack of capital" then why was funding so low on his list of improvements and why would the sensible increase of national education budgets not solve many of the problems the delegation of Glen Rhodes would have us believe it wishes to address ?

Likely because Dr Castro's intent was always to impose his delegation's dubious social agenda on the w.a. through the medium of education.

Yours,

Snefaldia

16-01-2009, 18:10

We would contend that that is what secondary education is.

This is a different contention, and we refer the honoured ambassador to the preceding several pages of semantic discussion as to why we have some reservations on the matter.

I have seen the positions of the Gobbanaean delegation, but I'm not sure I see how basic skills is qualified as secondary education. Primary comes first, then all else is expansion. You can't build a house without a cornerstone- similarly, primary education is what is necessary for secondary education to make sense.

'Affirming' is probably better word choice. Thank you for your suggestion, Ambassador.

Ms. Benson, the arbiter of all things regarding sex education, wouldn't think so. The problem is the possibility of sex education being insufficiently taught, or even completely bypassed. While the two can certainly be combined, it is much safer to mandate sex education separately.

I don't disagree with Ms. Benson's position, but I definitely think it's counterintuitive to make such a wide distinction. Considering that the subjects are being defined in a quite broad sense, I don't see any harm in including sex education as a more clearly-defined subset of the subject of health; you can both eliminate some unnecessary space in the character count and include treatment of safe sex as a facet of community and personal health.

Perhaps 'social studies' is a better subject, over 'social science'? One cannot teach all social sciences in however many years, but social studies is the broad study of human behavior, both past and present. "The study of history, geography, civics, sociology, economics, and other social-science subjects, especially in primary and secondary school" is the overview of social studies for Glen-Rhodes' primary and secondary courses.

Yes, this is a better word choice. If humility would allow you, the wording of your own nation's subject would provide the best definition on most counts- it can be left up to individual nations to synthesize their own course of study.

We are in agreement with Prince Rhodri Mawr that the delegation of Snefaldia should read the past debates on the meaning of primary education, so that they can give a better informed opinion on the matter.

My delegation, and many others, have been following faithfully the discussion so far, and I must confess with apologies that it's made our eyes glaze over. There's no need to endlessly philosophise about it; if the aim is provide a minimum standard of education in all member-states, then the argument regarding the meaning of primary and secondary is immaterial.

If, however, you have another aim, I can dust off my philosophy 201 textbooks and try to jump in. Our position is that a bright-line definition is both untenable and will be unnecessarily restrictive; this organization must support basic education before taking an eye to a larger system of primary, secondary, tertiary, and continuing education.

Nemo Taranton
Minister of W.A. Affairs

Glen-Rhodes

16-01-2009, 22:03

We are simply horrified by the arrogance of this statement. Force should be replaced with encouragement, contempt with cooperation, condescension with respect.

Doubtless there might be aspects of the culture or society of Glen Rhodes which other states might find objectionable, indeed from certain perspectives even reprehensible. Do we see those states flagrantly vilifying Glen Rhodes, denigrating it, calling it failed, writing laws which imply that Glen Rhodes is incapable of self betterment ?

No, is the answer.If you think providing a cuddly Teddy bear will solve the problem, then go ahead and try it, Ambassador. What you suggest is to nudge nations in the direction of a better education system, but provide them with nothing more than capital and the warm feeling that comes with thinking you've done something grand, when all that's really been accomplished is the draining of World Assembly funds in to risky investments; investments that aren't guaranteed to yield high results, if any results at all.

The anti-discrimination statute we are working on is not social engineering, it is an expression of the conscience of the societies which form the membership of this organisation.It's good to know that the intention is to not change societal behavior in regards to discrimination. To think, I was going to vote for it, based on the idea that it sought to stop an unfavorable practice.

We assure you that such an attitude is very far from inevitable. To use Urgench as an example, it is absolutely possible to treat society as the sum of the individuals which form it and to address the needs of the specific individual as the cure for wider social problems.

The very reason the empire has existed for 1500 years is because all its citizens are regarded as equals and they may approach the institutions of the empire knowing that they will be treated with respect for and interest in their personal concerns and desires.

To treat society as a hive of bees, which is the approach of Dr Castro (as outlined above ) is to deny human individuality, to insult human dignity and to obviate human freedom.While Glen-Rhodes cannot boast a 1,500 year existence, we can boast one of the best education systems in our twenty-five nation region.

There are roughly 450 million children in Glen-Rhodes' education system at any given time. Unless we choose to employ the other half of the population in to the system, there is no way that we can base our decisions on individual needs and wants of those 450 million students. I have a hard time believing that any education system in existence can boast such a thing, including that of Urgench.

We base our decisions on statistics, trends, oversight, foresight, budget, standardized test scores, future technology requirements, and plenty of other things under the sun. Not whether or not Bobby wants to take an integrated mathematics course.

The structuralist philosophy that Glen-Rhodes applies to it's education sector is what has lead to its achievements. The philosophy pertains that all students share base characteristics in how they learn. We take these characteristics and apply a universal groundwork of courses.

The context is essentially rendered immaterial by the application of the paternalism. The world assembly would be made a dictatorship if it behaved in a paternalistic manner. If it does not behave in a paternalistic manner, and instead uses its power to express the conscience of the populations of its member states then it is not a dictatorship.Context is everything. To quote a great Kennyite: "I could say 'I'm going to kill you,' and outside of context the phrase would sound very alarming. But it could have been said in jest, as hyperbole, as a metaphor, or otherwise not literally. You have to take words and phrases in context. You can't just take the literal meaning of words" and leave it at that.

Who has advocated the status quo Dr Castro ? Certainly not us. The encouragement and funding of national innovation and the promotion and protection of those aspects of any system which have positive outcomes for the individual are manifestly efficacious.You have advocated the faulty assumption that, given the choice, a failing government won't simply do business as usual.

And, might we say, if Dr Castro merely thinks that poorer states "are no doubt incapable of improvement on the basis of the lack of capital" then why was funding so low on his list of improvements and why would the sensible increase of national education budgets not solve many of the problems the delegation of Glen Rhodes would have us believe it wishes to address ?Funding was a fringe piece of this legislation because it's a much easier problem to solve than the inadequacies of government interest in education. In fact, funding isn't directly available unless a nation takes every possible action to raise funds, short of economic instability, which is why it is a fringe benefit. Capital is provided to those that cannot provide it for themselves; it not provided to everybody that asks for a blank check.

Likely because Dr Castro's intent was always to impose his delegation's dubious social agenda on the w.a. through the medium of education.And if it is? How is that any different that delegation of Urgench imposing it's nondiscrimination agenda? Or the Kennyite delegation imposing it's freedom of expression agenda? The agenda of my delegation is to impose free, quality, competent education.

I don't disagree with Ms. Benson's position, but I definitely think it's counterintuitive to make such a wide distinction. Considering that the subjects are being defined in a quite broad sense, I don't see any harm in including sex education as a more clearly-defined subset of the subject of health; you can both eliminate some unnecessary space in the character count and include treatment of safe sex as a facet of community and personal health.Perhaps something like this?
v) health education as education that increases the awareness and knowledge relating to the improvement of health on a personal and community basis, in conjunction with the studies of sexual anatomy, reproduction, and maturation.

Yes, this is a better word choice. If humility would allow you, the wording of your own nation's subject would provide the best definition on most counts- it can be left up to individual nations to synthesize their own course of study.Then:
iii) social studies as the rudimentary study of history, geography, civics, sociology, economics, and other social-science subjects.

I added "rudimentary" to clarify that nations aren't expected to go in depth on subjects like sociology and economics.

My delegation, and many others, have been following faithfully the discussion so far, and I must confess with apologies that it's made our eyes glaze over. There's no need to endlessly philosophise about it; if the aim is provide a minimum standard of education in all member-states, then the argument regarding the meaning of primary and secondary is immaterial.

If, however, you have another aim, I can dust off my philosophy 201 textbooks and try to jump in. Our position is that a bright-line definition is both untenable and will be unnecessarily restrictive; this organization must support basic education before taking an eye to a larger system of primary, secondary, tertiary, and continuing education.I couldn't agree more, Minister Taranton. All has been said, as far as I can tell, that can be said in the debate on meaning of primary education. My decision is that, since no legislation of further education is guaranteed, any definition or purpose spelled out should not depend on the assumption that further education exists. Whether or not it should exist has, ultimately, no affect on the fact that it isn't guaranteed to exist in all places.

The current bickering between my delegation and the delegation of Urgench is also finished, at least on this side of the table. It's clear that it is a philosophical debate, and is doing nothing but detracting from the actual debate at hand. Perhaps that's the intention, but I would hope not. What's said has been said, and now it's boiled down to repetition. I have no doubt that an agreement won't come, so what's the point in continuing?

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

Urgench

16-01-2009, 22:54

.

It's good to know that the intention is to not change societal behavior in regards to discrimination. To think, I was going to vote for it, based on the idea that it sought to stop an unfavorable practice.

Please do not vote for our statute because you imagine that it is social engineering, that would be a mistake. Righting injustice is not the same as social engineering Dr Castro.

There are roughly 450 million children in Glen-Rhodes' education system at any given time. Unless we choose to employ the other half of the population in to the system, there is no way that we can base our decisions on individual needs and wants of those 450 million students. I have a hard time believing that any education system in existence can boast such a thing, including that of Urgench.

It is perhaps this inability to conceive of the possibility of other approaches, and the possibility that other systems are viable which has brought us to this impasse. The failure of Glen Rhodes to treat its citizens as individuals is a depressing example of government malaise and lack of imagination or problem solving skills.

The structuralist philosophy that Glen-Rhodes applies to it's education sector is what has lead to its achievements. The philosophy pertains that all students share base characteristics in how they learn. We take these characteristics and apply a universal groundwork of courses.

Even though we could not endorse the Government of Glen Rhodes's theories of education, we accept that for some reason the people of Glen Rhodes are prepared to submit to them. We imagine that if they wished to do so, they would supplant their current government with another if they objected that strongly to being reduced to statistics.

It is for this reason that we have always advocated allowing states which successfully educate their people, by what ever means, be allowed to keep doing so without interruption. In fact it is perfectly possible to do this whilst at the same time substantially improving systems which do not work so well, it is the deficit in legislative imagination on the part of the delegation of Glen Rhodes which leads them to think that this is impossible.

Context is everything. To quote a great Kennyite: "I could say 'I'm going to kill you,' and outside of context the phrase would sound very alarming. But it could have been said in jest, as hyperbole, as a metaphor, or otherwise not literally. You have to take words and phrases in context. You can't just take the literal meaning of words" and leave it at that.

Quoting the words of our respected and esteemed Kennyite colleagues in any context is liable to elicit our complete derision. We have nothing but respect and even a little affection for the Kennyites but we do not view them as delphic in their pronouncements, as dearly as we may wish to.

And if it is? How is that any different that delegation of Urgench imposing it's nondiscrimination agenda? Or the Kennyite delegation imposing it's freedom of expression agenda? The agenda of my delegation is to impose free, quality, competent education.

this is patent nonsense, and is deserving of a concurrent level of attention.

Yours e.t.c.,

Snefaldia

16-01-2009, 23:48

Perhaps something like this: v) health education as education that increases the awareness and knowledge relating to the improvement of health on a personal and community basis, in conjunction with the studies of sexual anatomy, reproduction, and maturation.

Almost there, I think. I'm mulling over different wordings, but it's a definite improvement over the original wording.

"iii) social studies as the rudimentary study of history, geography, civics, sociology, economics, and other social-science subjects."

I added "rudimentary" to clarify that nations aren't expected to go in depth on subjects like sociology and economics.

Spot-on. I wouldn't expect initial students to have to understand concepts of microneconomic exchange, nor would I expect them to be able to understand the Battle of Yanzy. A good change.

I couldn't agree more, Minister Taranton. All has been said, as far as I can tell, that can be said in the debate on meaning of primary education. My decision is that, since no legislation of further education is guaranteed, any definition or purpose spelled out should not depend on the assumption that further education exists. Whether or not it should exist has, ultimately, no affect on the fact that it isn't guaranteed to exist in all places.

The current bickering between my delegation and the delegation of Urgench is also finished, at least on this side of the table. It's clear that it is a philosophical debate, and is doing nothing but detracting from the actual debate at hand. Perhaps that's the intention, but I would hope not. What's said has been said, and now it's boiled down to repetition. I have no doubt that an agreement won't come, so what's the point in continuing?

Quite well said- this isn't a philosophical topic like abortion or human rights; providing a baseline standard of education for all member-states shouldn't be so difficult to do. Perhaps with more tweaking and re-writes we'll be there.

Drinks in the Bar on the Snefaldians for all who cease the pointless arguing!

N.T.
etc.

Urgench

17-01-2009, 00:04

Drinks in the Bar on the Snefaldians for all who cease the pointless arguing!

N.T.
etc.

Respected Ambassador Taranton, our concerns are not pointless. But if even the esteemed and honoured delegation of Snefaldia is not prepared to try to understand our position then perhaps it truelly is time to cease wasting our time here.

We have lost faith in this organisation though, and it will be a matter of the gravest consideration for the Government of the Emperor of Urgench as to whether our continued loyalty to this organisation is in anyway beneficial to the empire.

However, if the honoured Ambassador Taranton's offer of a drink still stands, we will gladly imbibe of some conciliatory refreshment.

Yours sincerely,

Glen-Rhodes

17-01-2009, 01:33

Please do not vote for our statute because you imagine that it is social engineering, that would be a mistake. Righting injustice is not the same as social engineering Dr Castro.Despite what I said before about not continuing, this grievous error needs to be corrected.

"Righting injustice" is very much social engineering. Social engineering is not inherently good or bad. You accuse nations of being unable to "conceive of the possibility of other approaches", yet you state that social engineering is evil and to be avoided. The ignorance is amusing but it's clear that a lesson needs to be taught to the entire World Assembly.

What we do is social engineering. That is our trade, as ambassadors, delegates, and representatives of and for the World Assembly. To deny so is to deny that we do anything at all. The term has been erroneously imbued with a negative connotation throughout history, marring those of us that use it with the intent of good.

The intent and context of social engineering is where 'good' and 'bad' are found. Take a nation who passes laws allowing an authority to terminate access to websites that provide instructions on homemade improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Applying the method of the generalist, this nation is passing bad laws... laws that, to the generalist, must be infringing a person's freedom. Now, take in to account that numerous case studies on the increasing rate of suicide bombings on densely populated public area show that 90% of these suicide bombers got their knowledge of how to make IEDs from the internet. The political freedom index of this nation is superb, yet the safety of its people is drastically declining. So, they prevent everybody from accessing these websites. Is this bad, or is this good?

Flip the situation around. The political freedom index of this nation is horrible, downright unacceptable. It's common knowledge that it has been fighting off dissenters and rights activists for decades. A case study on the increasing rate of bombings on government buildings shows that the aggressors have learned how to make IEDs from the internet. So, to protect itself from its own people, the government restricts access to these websites. Is this bad, or is this good?

It's never as simple as "this practice is good, and this practice is bad". Intent and context are extremely important, and the dismissal of either can, and most likely will, lead to unintended and harmful results.

That being said and done, we are eagerly awaiting the suggestions from the Snefaldian delegation, and are pleased that our changes have been agreeable.

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

Urgench

17-01-2009, 01:45

Despite what I said before about not continuing, this grievous error needs to be corrected.

"Righting injustice" is very much social engineering. Social engineering is not inherently good or bad. You accuse nations of being unable to "conceive of the possibility of other approaches", yet you state that social engineering is evil and to be avoided. The ignorance is amusing but it's clear that a lesson needs to be taught to the entire World Assembly.

What we do is social engineering. That is our trade, as ambassadors, delegates, and representatives of and for the World Assembly. To deny so is to deny that we do anything at all. The term has been erroneously imbued with a negative connotation throughout history, marring those of us that use it with the intent of good.

The intent and context of social engineering is where 'good' and 'bad' are found. Take a nation who passes laws allowing an authority to terminate access to websites that provide instructions on homemade improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Applying the method of the generalist, this nation is passing bad laws... laws that, to the generalist, must be infringing a person's freedom. Now, take in to account that numerous case studies on the increasing rate of suicide bombings on densely populated public area show that 90% of these suicide bombers got their knowledge of how to make IEDs from the internet. The political freedom index of this nation is superb, yet the safety of its people is drastically declining. So, they prevent everybody from accessing these websites. Is this bad, or is this good?

Flip the situation around. The political freedom index of this nation is horrible, downright unacceptable. It's common knowledge that it has been fighting off dissenters and rights activists for decades. A case study on the increasing rate of bombings on government buildings shows that the aggressors have learned how to make IEDs from the internet. So, to protect itself from its own people, the government restricts access to these websites. Is this bad, or is this good?

It's never as simple as "this practice is good, and this practice is bad". Intent and context are extremely important, and the dismissal of either can, and most likely will, lead to unintended and harmful results.

That being said and done, we are eagerly awaiting the suggestions from the Snefaldian delegation, and are pleased that our changes have been agreeable.

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

Interestingly neither of these examples is actually an example of social engineering. But we will pass over any further debate of any kind on these matters in the hopes that Dr Castro will do so also.

Yours,

Glen-Rhodes

17-01-2009, 01:48

Interestingly neither of these examples is actually an example of social engineering. But we will pass over any further debate of any kind on these matters in the hopes that Dr Castro will do so also.Touche. Indeed, the lesson turned in to a broader lesson on acknowledging intent and context, which just might be more important than the realization that we all practice a certain level of social engineering.

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

Wachichi

17-01-2009, 07:02

ambassadors,

allow me to be blunt and straight forward, WHAT THE HELL DOES SOCIAL ENGINEERING AND ALL THAT 'RIGHTS' MUMBO JUMBO HAVE TO DO WITH PRIMARY EDUCATION!

NOTHING! what a surprise...

now, going back to my diplomatic stance,

the ambassador of Snefaldia seems to be the only one that is debating in relation to the resolution itself.

ambassador of Urgench,

i would love to hear your stance and argument, as well as my partners, but ONLY in direct reference and relevance to the resolution. so both should state your stances in direct language and how it directly relates to something in the proposal, in order for the debate to continue effectively and all sides be heard and understood well.

i don't have time to read pages and pages of arguing that seem to have no relavance. both your sides, make it very hard for others to get into the debate, since it's been going on the same philisocial points for the last 5 pages. all i'm asking is that my partner, and my friend from Urgench, state their positions, in direct sentences with DIRECT relevance to the resolution being debated. in order for us to progressively move the debate along. thank you.

Wachichi. :D

(hoping for more effective debate)

Wachichi

18-01-2009, 19:25

?? this is expiring.

Glen-Rhodes

18-01-2009, 21:27

?? this is expiring.

There have been lulls in the debate before, Ambassador. There are other resolutions at hand that also deserve the attention of the delegations.

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

Wachichi

19-01-2009, 06:41

i know, i've been watching them too, it's just that this debate had gotta off the list because of the lack of debate, so i had to comment on it, just to keep it in the main list.

Wachichi

Linux and the X

19-01-2009, 18:39

What is the definition of "juvenile" for purposes of this resolution?

Glen-Rhodes

19-01-2009, 19:27

What is the definition of "juvenile" for purposes of this resolution?Whether or not to include a definition is still being debated. The argument that has been put forth is that primary education itself ought to be given a clear, defined purpose, instead of putting a limit on 'juvenile'. I believe the representative of Gobbanium said something along the lines of putting an age limit on when one is education suggests that the purpose of education is to simply attend.

I've agreed already that the method of applying a clear purpose to primary education could work, rather than saying "children have to attend from this age to this age". Given a directed purpose and the minimum courses, nations would be forced to set a reasonable length of education time.

What's being discussed now is what should be used as the purpose of primary education. The lengthy debate can be read in the past three or four pages.

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

Linux and the X

19-01-2009, 20:11

Another thing I'd like to ask is if this would require a formal educational system.

Glen-Rhodes

19-01-2009, 20:16

Another thing I'd like to ask is if this would require a formal educational system.That depends wholly on what you mean by formal and informal.

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

Linux and the X

20-01-2009, 02:09

Glen-Rhodes

20-01-2009, 03:14

The educational system within my own nation draws heavily from the unschooling (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Unschooling) philosophy. There are not formal classrooms or schools, but groups of people who choose to assist in learning and certify that a person has absorbed knowledge in a given area. People are, of course, free to go without being certified as knowledgeable in a topic if they choose to, though in most cases certification is sought.

I'm not terribly familiar with the philosophy. The resolution mandates that primary education must teach the required courses. It doesn't mandate how those courses are taught. So, as long as the children of your nation are certified in all the required courses, then there is no problem.

With regards to students not being certified, is think akin to dropping out? If not, then could you please explain the downsides of not receiving certification? Either way, this resolution doesn't call for compulsory attendance, rather it simply calls for nations to provide a proper education for anyone who seeks it.

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

Linux and the X

20-01-2009, 04:01

Certifications are entirely optional, they are merely a statement from another person that the knowledge has been absorbed. It would be equivalent to dropping out but learning independently.

The primary disadvantage to not receiving certification is not having independent proof of knowledge. Many employers prefer to hire people with certification so as to avoid testing for knowledge relevant to a job. (OOC: It's similar to the way employers would hire someone with a CCNA certificate than without, all other things being equal.)

The only problem this delegation found with the proposal was the possibility of compulsory attendance being mandated. If that were made clearer within the text of the proposal, we would support it (however, as a matter of policy, we would not vote for it if another delegation who has endorsed us registers strong opposition).

Gobbannium

21-01-2009, 20:29

I have seen the positions of the Gobbanaean delegation, but I'm not sure I see how basic skills is qualified as secondary education. Primary comes first, then all else is expansion. You can't build a house without a cornerstone- similarly, primary education is what is necessary for secondary education to make sense.
This is true, however we would contend that "basic skills" and "the minimum of education required for a person to survive and advance in society" are different things. The former overlaps considerably with the output of primary education, while the second is much more the province of secondary. Why else would one consider secondary education important enough to be compulsory if the survival minima had already been achieved?

Whether or not to include a definition is still being debated. The argument that has been put forth is that primary education itself ought to be given a clear, defined purpose, instead of putting a limit on 'juvenile'. I believe the representative of Gobbanium said something along the lines of putting an age limit on when one is education suggests that the purpose of education is to simply attend.
The transcript of Dr Castro's speech appears to have become slightly mangled. We averred that it was defining primary education in terms of an age limit that suggested such an empty purpose.

Snefaldia

21-01-2009, 22:36

This is true, however we would contend that "basic skills" and "the minimum of education required for a person to survive and advance in society" are different things. The former overlaps considerably with the output of primary education, while the second is much more the province of secondary. Why else would one consider secondary education important enough to be compulsory if the survival minima had already been achieved?

Semantics. You're operating from a premise that defines the terms in relation to a certain cultural operative; this resolution has the ability to create an education standard that doesn't use terms or infringe on existing education systems by simply mandating the teaching of certain subjects, for whatever philosophical or moral purpose.

N.T.
etc.

Urgench

21-01-2009, 22:43

Semantics. You're operating from a premise that defines the terms in relation to a certain cultural operative; this resolution has the ability to create an education standard that doesn't use terms or infringe on existing education systems by simply mandating the teaching of certain subjects, for whatever philosophical or moral purpose.

N.T.
etc.

Goodness, respected Ambassador, that sounds awfully familiar.

Yours,

Glen-Rhodes

21-01-2009, 22:43

The transcript of Dr Castro's speech appears to have become slightly mangled. We averred that it was defining primary education in terms of an age limit that suggested such an empty purpose.Sleepy transcribers. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

The current revision includes some major and minor updates, and also attempts to decrease the word count to a suitable number.
OBSERVING 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 the right to education,

The World Assembly shall thus:
I) DEFINE the following, solely for the purpose of this resolution:
a) '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.
b) ‘primary education’ as the series of educational courses given to juveniles, until they have successfully reached a level of basic understanding of those courses.

II) MANDATE that every juvenile shall be provided a primary education, free of direct cost to the juveniles 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 juvenile'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.
c) DECLARING that nations reserve the right to teach these courses in any ways they deem acceptable, while still maintaining the integrity of the courses themselves.

IV) ENCOURAGE nations to go beyond the minimum required courses set in this Act.

V) MANDATE that all World Assembly member nations make primary education readily available to people of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of standard-level brain activity.

VI) ESTABLISH the World Assembly Education Services Committee, which is tasked with assisting in:
a) 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
b) the establishment of national and international education research organizations
c) the establishment and maintenance of local, national, and international educator training programs.

VII) EXTEND the duties of the General Accounting Office to include approving, denying, and generally managing all requests for financial aid, in regards to the mandates and programs of this Act, based on the qualifications of the requesting World Assembly member nation as written in Article VIII, and the fiscal responsibility of those requests.

VIII) DECLARE that a World Assembly 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 reasonable fund-raising operation
b) the nation has no existing education system or infrastructure.

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

Snefaldia

22-01-2009, 00:01

Goodness, respected Ambassador, that sounds awfully familiar.

I held a similar position in the "Independent Thought" debate, so it should.

N.T.
etc.

Urgench

22-01-2009, 00:11

I held a similar position in the "Independent Thought" debate, so it should.

N.T.
etc.

Indeed, and we would endorse this position whole heartedly, especially since it is the essence of our own position in this debate.

Yours sincerely,

Wachichi

22-01-2009, 01:14

have we considered what the ramifications would be if a nation didn't comply? i know this is a universal question applicable to all the resolutions, but, how will this be enforced? maybe it doesn't serve the purpose since these resolutions are simply for role play and not enforcing factors.

Wachichi.

Urgench

22-01-2009, 01:17

If properly written compliance is not optional and enforcement is not necessary honoured Ambassador.

Yours,

Lloegeyr

22-01-2009, 01:26

I was wondering, Dr Castro, if you might avoid all this foofaraw trying to define primary education in terms of age -- which, in all likelihood, will extend to "juvenile", since species in some member nations simply don't have a juvenile stage -- by substituting the term "beginner"?

Lloegeyrian educational philosophers carry on a lot about "continuing education", which I think means you can get edjumacated whenever the urge takes you.

I don't see why people shouldn't be able to get the basics for free if they missed out when they were kids.

In terms of your proposal, it'd mean substituting "beginners" where you've got "juveniles", chucking in an "and/or" and a "where appropriate" in Clause II, (so it would read "free of direct cost to the beginners and/or their parents or guardians, where appropriate"), and replacing "child" with "person" in Clause V.

I don't say such a change would ensure my government's support -- the beancounters are still checking the financial clauses -- but it'd make it a whole lot easier to sell if we could use that lovely line, "Look, it's more inclusive!" when we try to explain it to the PM.

Whose intellectual attainments I respect deeply. Naturally.

-- Dame Andrea Packer-Fairfax,
Chef de Mission, Lloegeyrian WA delegation.

Gobbannium

22-01-2009, 05:18

Since the current draft will not affect Gobbannium's educational system one jot, we suppose we cannot complain. It's merely sad that the reason for that is the weakness of the resolution rather than the strength of our schooling system.

Glen-Rhodes

22-01-2009, 23:15

I was wondering, Dr Castro, if you might avoid all this foofaraw trying to define primary education in terms of age -- which, in all likelihood, will extend to "juvenile", since species in some member nations simply don't have a juvenile stage -- by substituting the term "beginner"?

I'm wondering if 'students' or 'persons/people' might not be the best of all, if we wish to give the late-starters a chance to succeed?

Since the current draft will not affect Gobbannium's educational system one jot, we suppose we cannot complain. It's merely sad that the reason for that is the weakness of the resolution rather than the strength of our schooling system.

Your vagueness has gotten my attention. Go on, less your concerns fade in to the depths... Unless of course, it's still about purposes and definitions. I've addressed that to the best of my ability. Short of you writing what you want, exactly, I can't do much more.

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

Wachichi

23-01-2009, 00:21

"Since the current draft will not affect Gobbannium's educational system one jot, we suppose we cannot complain. It's merely sad that the reason for that is the weakness of the resolution rather than the strength of our schooling system."

if your school system is so good, than yes, this resolution won't affect it, but this proposal is aimed at struggling school systems therefore, not aimed at yours.

Wachichi.

unless there are any more objections or definitions to debate, i think we should move to push it up for vote.

Gobbannium

23-01-2009, 03:12

if your school system is so good, than yes, this resolution won't affect it, but this proposal is aimed at struggling school systems therefore, not aimed at yours.
You have almost entirely inverted my meaning, ambassador.

Your vagueness has gotten my attention. Go on, less your concerns fade in to the depths... Unless of course, it's still about purposes and definitions. I've addressed that to the best of my ability. Short of you writing what you want, exactly, I can't do much more.
Your resolution will achieve one entirely admirable thing, free primary education. The definitions, it is true, could do considerable damage to a reasonable education system, but fortunately the lax wording of the remainder of the resolution leaves a positive glut of loopholes to slip through. Since we have every intention of using them, we trust the you will forgive us for not elucidating further.

Glen-Rhodes

23-01-2009, 18:18

Your resolution will achieve one entirely admirable thing, free primary education. The definitions, it is true, could do considerable damage to a reasonable education system, but fortunately the lax wording of the remainder of the resolution leaves a positive glut of loopholes to slip through. Since we have every intention of using them, we trust the you will forgive us for not elucidating further.

I don't see any loopholes in Articles IV, V, VI, VII, or VIII that would allow any nation to circumvent Article III (I'm assuming you mean the definitions of the required courses). The closest thing to a loophole that I can see is Article III, Clause C, which reads: "c) DECLARING that nations reserve the right to teach these courses in any ways they deem acceptable, while still maintaining the integrity of the courses themselves."

The clause is built upon the word integrity, an undivided or unbroken completeness or totality with nothing wanting. Given that, a devious nation may say that their classes are not divided, broken, or wanting, while still not living up to the intent of the definitions provided.

"c) DECLARING that nations reserve the right to teach these required courses in any ways they deem acceptable, while still maintaining the integrity and the intent of the required courses themselves." ought to clear that up in any case.

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

New Illuve

23-01-2009, 19:36

Glen-Rhodes

23-01-2009, 21:45

Unfortunately, the addition of Article III C does nothing to close any loopholes whatsoever. The thought-experiment that the Holy Empire has previously provided continues to hold. The nation of Gobbannium has nothing to fear from this Proposal as written.Article III, Clause C isn't meant to close any loopholes, namely because I have no clue what loopholes you people are seeing. Article III, Clause C is meant to protect unconventional education practices, such as 'unschooling'.

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

New Illuve

24-01-2009, 09:44

Wachichi

24-01-2009, 20:07

The Holy Empire holds by Her position that this Proposal will cement the ability of oppressive nations the ability to "keep the citizens dumb".

well, how do you propose we fix that specific loophole ambassador?

Wachichi

Charlotte Ryberg

24-01-2009, 20:15

Basically it is every citizen of the WA that is entitled to basic education, free of charge.

Glen-Rhodes

24-01-2009, 23:13

The loopholes, honored Ambassador, have been well and often spoken of. However the authors of this Proposal have declared that the remedies necessary to close the loopholes will not be taken, nor will those decisions be revisited.

The Holy Empire holds by Her position that this Proposal will cement the ability of oppressive nations the ability to "keep the citizens dumb".Where are these loopholes? Point them out to me clearly, with quotations both from the conversations explaining them and from the content of the resolutions itself, because it is obvious that I cannot see them. I've seen a couple delegation say that there are loopholes, but not one has actually pointed out a clear, honest loophole.

Also, if you could justify that the resolution would "cement the ability of oppressive nations the ability to 'keep the citizens dumb'", that would be a nice gesture.

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

Wachichi

25-01-2009, 20:04

all this would be greatly helpful in further developing this proposal further.

Wachichi

Wachichi

27-01-2009, 03:19

please ambassador.

Bears Armed

28-01-2009, 19:17

Basically it is every citizen of the WA that is entitled to basic education, free of charge.
The status "citizen of the WA" does not exist: Some (although maybe not all) of the WA's member nations have citizens, but that's another matter...

Taurat

28-01-2009, 21:08

Mine is an officially secular society. People are free to practice their own religion but as the separation of Church and State is enforced I can say that we do not have an issue with the stance on religious teachings.

But.

We acknowledge that there are MANY deeply religious nations who will not appreciate being told what level of religious education they may or may not administer to their children. We must establish if that is going to be an issue at primary level before I can support this bill.

Glen-Rhodes

28-01-2009, 22:29

We acknowledge that there are MANY deeply religious nations who will not appreciate being told what level of religious education they may or may not administer to their children. We must establish if that is going to be an issue at primary level before I can support this bill.Religion hasn't been an aspect of the Primary Education Act for the past several revisions. So, religious teaching shouldn't be an issue. Although, it can be argued that any of the required courses could conflict with certain religious views. In such cases, I honestly stop catering to the idea that everybody can be pleased.

In short, religion may or may not be taught. However, not at the exclusion of any of the required courses.

It also seems that the Snefaldian delegation has finished or abandoned mulling over word choice, so I'm providing the latest revision (#22).

OBSERVING that education promotes economic and social growth,

ADHERING to the idea of the right to knowledge,

PROCLAIMING that the World Assembly has the responsibility to ensure that all persons are afforded an equal opportunity to an efficient education,

The World Assembly shall thus:
I) DEFINE the following, solely for the purpose of this Act:
a) '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.
b) ‘primary education’ as the series of educational courses given to a person, until they have successfully reached a level of basic understanding of those courses.

II) MANDATE that every person shall be provided a primary education, free of direct cost to the person and their parents or guardians.

III) ESTABLISH minimum required courses for primary education:
a) SUCH required courses shall be language arts, mathematics, social studies, science, and health education, as proves most useful to each person'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) social studies as the rudimentary study of history, geography, civics, sociology, economics, and other social-science subjects
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, in conjunction with the studies of sexual anatomy, reproduction, and maturation.
c) DECLARING that nations reserve the right to teach these courses in any ways they deem acceptable, while still maintaining the integrity of the courses themselves.

IV) ENCOURAGE nations to go beyond the minimum required courses set in this Act.

V) MANDATE that all World Assembly member nations make primary education readily available to persons of mental or physical disability, given that such a disability has not rendered the child incapable of standard-level brain activity.

VI) ESTABLISH the World Assembly Education Services Committee, which is tasked with assisting in:
a) 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
b) the establishment of national and international education research organizations
c) the establishment and maintenance of local, national, and international educator training programs.

VII) EXTEND the duties of the General Accounting Office to include approving, denying, and generally managing all requests for financial aid, in regards to the mandates and programs of this Act, based on the qualifications of the requesting World Assembly member nation as written in Article VIII, and the fiscal responsibility of those requests.

VIII) DECLARE that a World Assembly 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 reasonable fund-raising operation
b) the nation has no existing education system or infrastructure.

By my count, it's just under 3,500 characters. Hopefully we're close to being able to submit this.

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

Moussaland

29-01-2009, 00:00

lol. yes, my partner, it's been a long debate, and hopefully we can finally pass it in, unless there are any more objections.

Wachichi.

Moussaland

29-01-2009, 00:08

just using another one of my nations to comment for now. :D

Flavanium

29-01-2009, 02:01

Glen-Rhodes

29-01-2009, 02:34

Lloegeyr

29-01-2009, 02:45

*Psst!* You've got "persons" in one part of Clause 5, but "child" in another, petal.

-- Dame Andrea Packer-Fairfax,
Chef de Mission, Lloegeyrian WA delegation.

Urgench

29-01-2009, 12:59

I am against this proposition to the last word, and will be voting against it. Evolutionists' "religion" is Evolution, but it is considered "science". Creationists' "religion" is Creation, and they consider it science, but others consider it religion. This would not promote religious freedom, but expel it.

Though we will be voting against this resolution for our own reasons, we have to say that in fairness this resolution will not interfere with a nation's ability to teach whatever mythology their religion/s may hold dear, and that there is no such thing as an "Evolutionist" and that the theory of Evolution ( deceptively named since really it is no longer just a theory ) is nothing like a religion and that those who teach it and study it do not have to believe in it at all, but can see irrefutable evidence of it everywhere around them.

Evolution and so called creationism are not in competition with one another for the consciences of man since they require two completely different standards of evidence. Teach children to believe in whatever a nation wishes, but this statute will also have member states teach them to investigate and question the physical world around them in an organised and logical manner, perhaps one of this resolution's very few useful virtues.

Yours,

Wachichi

31-01-2009, 00:36

thank you, unless there are any more suggestions for the proposal, i think we should move on to try to pass the bill partner.

and by suggestions, i don't mean, a complete overhaul of what we have without a logical reason. thank you. If not, ambassador from Glen-Rhodes, telegram me when you are prepared to pass in the legislation.

Wachichi

Tai Lao

02-02-2009, 07:23

Glen-Rhodes

02-02-2009, 21:02

Very well written proposal, will be supporting it whence it comes to vote. I would be interested to hear Urgench's reasons for opposition to it though

-Ariovist Lynxkind, AmbassadorIt's been a while, but I believe the delegation of Urgench is opposed to it because it isn't as flexible as they would like it be. Their education system is quite unique, and would undergo a great deal of reformation should the Primary Education Act be passed.

I've contacted the delegation of Wachichi, and we are soon to be in the process of submitting the proposal and campaigning for approvals.

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

Tai Lao

03-02-2009, 07:44

It's been a while, but I believe the delegation of Urgench is opposed to it because it isn't as flexible as they would like it be. Their education system is quite unique, and would undergo a great deal of reformation should the Primary Education Act be passed.

I've contacted the delegation of Wachichi, and we are soon to be in the process of submitting the proposal and campaigning for approvals.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes
I thought that the second half of VI, part a would have allowed for that. That section is the thing that allowed us to support this actually, as it gives leeway for individual nations needs, whilst ensuring what we see as a basic right for beings.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Urgench

03-02-2009, 11:36

The problem is not how much leeway the statute gives states, but how little it gives the individual for whom the education is intended honoured Ambassador.

Yours,

Tai Lao

03-02-2009, 18:18

The problem is not how much leeway the statute gives states, but how little it gives the individual for whom the education is intended honoured Ambassador.

Yours,

I guess it depends on the way things are looked at. We see this, as with many other resolutions, as being benchmarks as to the minimum standard needed. If a country is willing to go beyond that for the individual's needs, then they would be allowed to.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Urgench

03-02-2009, 18:24

I guess it depends on the way things are looked at. We see this, as with many other resolutions, as being benchmarks as to the minimum standard needed. If a country is willing to go beyond that for the individual's needs, then they would be allowed to.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Our own system currently far ourstrips anything outlined in this statute, however we achieve such high standards by means which are not allowable under the provisions of this statute. Specifically the mandatory courses for primary education. It is complicated to explain and we have done so ad nauseam through out this drafting process which if you care to you may read through, but our system does not mandate any specific courses of education at any phase of development. To do so would completely undermine the methods by which education takes place within the empire.

Yours,

Tai Lao

03-02-2009, 18:43

Our own system currently far ourstrips anything outlined in this statute, however we acheive such high standards by means which are not allowable under the provisions of this statute. Specifically the mandatory courses for primary education. It is complicated to explain and we have done so ad nauseam through out this drafting process which if you care to you may read through, but our system does not mandate any specific courses of education at any phase of development. To do so would completely undermine the methods by which education takes place within the empire.

Yours,
Ah, that is fair enough. It is unfortunate that this legislation, and any currently used or proposed, can not adequately meet the needs of every nation, and in instances impede them, but that is the joys of the diversity of this body, I guess.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Urgench

03-02-2009, 18:46

It is not any sort of joy at all, honoured Ambassador.

Yours,

Studly Penguins

03-02-2009, 20:25

Glen-Rhodes

03-02-2009, 21:18

We are in 100% agreement with Urgench and others that feel our educational system exceeds this proposal and would be greatly hindered by it.It's a really doubtful event, to be completely honest. While it may not be the most diplomatic of views, I do believe that if, for example, having to learn how to write or add two numbers together 'greatly hinders' a system of education, then there is something gravely wrong with that system. Perhaps it hinders a philosophy, but no one can justly argue that knowing the basics of mathematics actually hurts ones education, even if they want to become a novelist.

Can we least be left one area that soverign nations have complete control of instead of Big Brother looking over our shoulders?Are you saying such a thing based on the merits of this proposal, or just in an effort to decrease the World Assembly's reach? I'm failing to see how the "Big Brother" sentiment applies any more to this proposal than it does to every resolution passed by the World Assembly.

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

Wachichi

03-02-2009, 22:21

you must also understand that the benchmarks play a VERY vital role, when it comes to helping disadvantaged countries with poor or no education systems. they need benchmarks or goals to meet to move forward.

Wachichi

Flibbleites

04-02-2009, 02:48

Tai Lao

04-02-2009, 07:59

From what I have read and seen, and it is of this Ambassadors opinion that this be left to individual nations to decide. Make it into a everyday issue for NS. We are in 100% agreement with Urgench and others that feel our educational system exceeds this proposal and would be greatly hindered by it. Can we least be left one area that soverign nations have complete control of instead of Big Brother looking over our shoulders?
Please explain how setting a benchmark, with nothing preventing a nation from exceeding that benchmark, actually hinders an educational system. There is nothing that says you have to do this and only this, just setting the minimum requirement in regards to protecting someone's right to learn. If your education system exceeds the minimum required by this, yay you. Some nations, unfortunately on the other hand, fail to reach these minimums, and this is to support both the right to learn, and help nations achieve these minimums. At least that is the way we of Tai Lao see it. Our education systems far exceed what is presented here too, but we are glad to see something to help those not as well off achieve an education, and therefore possibly a better lot in life

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Studly Penguins

04-02-2009, 08:30

*sniffs the air*
Is that the subtle odor of hypocrisy I smell? It seems strange that the author of a resolution on an issue that is most assuredly not international in nature would oppose something purely on NatSov grounds.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Nah that isnt what you smell Ambassador. If you go to the thread for the Repeal of the Vets Act, you will find a post from me eating crow, and admitting to my mistake, etc. I imagine that you all will get some pleasure out of it, and me learning a lesson.

As for Tai Lao's concerns if I am not missing the boat on it, I just see how this my educational system is better taking off. A benchmark is a good thing in our opinion, but to make it mandatory across the board rather than a model is where my objection comes in at.

Urgench

04-02-2009, 13:15

Please explain how setting a benchmark, with nothing preventing a nation from exceeding that benchmark, actually hinders an educational system. There is nothing that says you have to do this and only this, just setting the minimum requirement in regards to protecting someone's right to learn. If your education system exceeds the minimum required by this, yay you. Some nations, unfortunately on the other hand, fail to reach these minimums, and this is to support both the right to learn, and help nations achieve these minimums. At least that is the way we of Tai Lao see it. Our education systems far exceed what is presented here too, but we are glad to see something to help those not as well off achieve an education, and therefore possibly a better lot in life

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

In fact there are no "benchmarks" in this statute and outcomes of education are completely ignored by it. This resolution addresses the process of education without ever once seeming to care about the efficacy or results produced by the process of education.

It is sad to hear the argument that because there are states which fail their citizens in the provision of education that those who are successful in such provision must regress any progress they have achieved and that we must all consent to having our education systems engineered to compensate for the dubious education philosophies of Dr Castro of the delegation of Glen Rhodes.

Yours,

Glen-Rhodes

04-02-2009, 21:09

In fact there are no "benchmarks" in this statute and outcomes of education are completely ignored by it. This resolution addresses the process of education without ever once seeming to care about the efficacy or results produced by the process of education.Baseless, really. Unless you completely bypass Article III while reading, there's a clear benchmark. And unless you flat-out ignore the seven times that outcomes are specifically mentioned, the notion that outcomes are not important to this legislation is absurd.
It is sad to hear the argument that because there are states which fail their citizens in the provision of education that those who are successful in such provision must regress any progress they have achieved ...I've given it much thought, and the only conclusion I have been able to reach is that Urgench values education philosophy more than it does actual education. You are opposing this entire piece of legislation on the faulty assumption that it will somehow reverse progress made by other nations. What you fail to realize, or are just too stubborn to realize -- or you may actually realize it, but just don't care -- is that your entire argument has nothing to do with education at all, but rather what you think a system or philosophy of education ought to be.

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

Urgench

04-02-2009, 21:11

As you please Dr Castro, you are free to think what you wish.

Yours,

Wachichi

04-02-2009, 23:00

ambassador of Urgench:

this resolution DOES care about efficiency, which is why we have something like 2 or three committee's working on the individual education system needs of each country.

Wachichi

Urgench

05-02-2009, 00:20

When did we mention efficiency honoured Ambassador ?

Yours,

Glen-Rhodes

12-02-2009, 21:33

Yesterday, I formally submitted the proposal for consideration. The delegation of Wachichi should be dispatching numerous telegrams to active delegates, and I have finished dispatching a batch of telegrams, myself. I urge all members to speak with their delegates in support of this legislation.

The final version has some changes, mostly with wording, as the character count was too large. The only serious thing added was an annual review of financial aid, given that without such a review, nations that were qualified at any time would be legally allowed to continue receiving financial aid long after the necessity was no longer there.

The submitted text:
OBSERVING that education promotes economic and social growth,

PROCLAIMING that the World Assembly has the responsibility to ensure that all persons are afforded an equal opportunity to an efficient education,

The World Assembly shall thus:
I) DEFINE the following, solely for the purpose of this Act:
a) 'education' as the process of imparting or acquiring knowledge, developing the cognitive abilities of reasoning and judgment, and preparing oneself or others for mature life.
b) ‘primary education’ as the series of educational courses given to a person, until they have successfully reached a level of basic understanding of those courses.

II) MANDATE that every person shall be provided a primary education, free of direct cost to the person and their parents or guardians.

III) ESTABLISH minimum required courses for primary education:
a) SUCH courses shall be language arts, mathematics, social studies, science, and health education, as proves most useful to each person'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) social studies as the rudimentary study of history, geography, civics, sociology, economics, and other social-science subjects
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, in conjunction with the studies of sexual anatomy, reproduction, and maturation.
c) DECLARING that nations reserve the right to teach these courses in any ways they deem acceptable, while still maintaining the integrity and intent of the courses themselves.

IV) ENCOURAGE nations to go beyond the minimum required courses set in this Act.

V) MANDATE that all World Assembly member nations (“member nations”) make primary education readily available to persons of mental or physical disability, given that the person capable of the intellectual abilities used in acquiring knowledge.

VI) ESTABLISH the World Assembly Education Services Committee, which is tasked with assisting in:
a) the establishment of internationally common standards of education where reasonable, and, where infeasible, assisting national governments with the establishment of local standards of education
b) the establishment of national and international education research organizations
c) the establishment and maintenance of local, national, and international educator training programs.

VII) EXTEND the duties of the General Accounting Office to include approving, denying, and managing requests for aid, including annually reviewing the necessity of existing aid and diminishing or increasing it where applicable, in regards to this Act, based on the qualifications of the requesting member nation as written in Article VIII and on the fiscal responsibility of those requests.

VIII) DECLARE that a member nation qualifies for aid if it meets one or all of the following:
a) the nation is unable to financially meet the requirements of this Act, after instituting every reasonable fund-raising operation
b) the nation has no existing education system or infrastructure.

Co-authored by Wachichi.

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

Wachichi

12-02-2009, 22:34

perhaps a link to it would be fitting partner.

Wachichi

Glen-Rhodes

12-02-2009, 23:16

perhaps a link to it would be fitting partner.

Certainly. The latest link available is: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal/start=3

Wachichi

13-02-2009, 03:51

i have finished my list of active delegates. maybe we should have a copy of the link on the very first page also.

Wachichi

Glen-Rhodes

15-02-2009, 01:15

There are only a few hours left, and 13 more approvals are needed to reach quorum. Hopefully, by the time I wake up tomorrow, those 13 approvals will have been given. Otherwise, I'm going to re-think the campaigning and re-submit the proposal when a better campaign plan has been made.

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

Tai Lao

15-02-2009, 02:23

Linux and the X

15-02-2009, 15:42

Quorum was not reached, I think it was down to ten approvals needed.

Glen-Rhodes

15-02-2009, 17:05

Quorum was not reached, I think it was down to ten approvals needed.

My best count was 10 also, based on the telegrams I received from those that approved it in the late-hours. Unfortunately, a few were too late to give their approval.

There's a bit of gratification in the fact that it had the most approvals out of all the proposal ending on the 14th, at my last check. I'm sure a more organized campaign would get the 42 approvals plus the 10 more approvals needed.

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

Quintessence of Dust

16-02-2009, 01:20

OOC: I have only limited access to the NS game site at the moment, but when you decided to submit it again if you let me know in advance, I might be able to help TG.

Glen-Rhodes

11-04-2009, 23:34

OOC:

Second round.
Submitted text:
OBSERVING that education promotes economic and social growth,

PROCLAIMING that the World Assembly has the responsibility to ensure that all persons are afforded an equal opportunity to an efficient education,

The World Assembly shall thus:
I) DEFINE the following, solely for the purpose of this Act:
a) 'education' as the process of imparting or acquiring knowledge, developing the cognitive abilities of reasoning and judgment, and preparing for mature life.
b) ‘primary education’ as the series of educational courses given to a person until they have successfully reached a level of basic understanding of those courses.

II) MANDATE that every person shall be provided a primary education, free of direct cost to the person and their parents or guardians.

III) ESTABLISH minimum required courses for primary education,
a) WHICH ARE language arts, mathematics, social studies, science, and health education, as proves most useful to each person'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) social studies as the rudimentary study of history, geography, civics, sociology, economics, and other social-science subjects
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, in conjunction with the studies of sexual anatomy, reproduction, and maturation.
c) DECLARING that nations reserve the right to teach these courses in ways they deem acceptable, while still maintaining the integrity and intent of the courses themselves.

IV) ENCOURAGE nations to go beyond the minimum required courses set in this Act.

V) ESTABLISH the World Assembly Education Services Committee, which is tasked with assisting in:
a) the establishment of internationally common standards of education where reasonable, and, where infeasible, assisting national governments with the establishment of local standards of education
b) the establishment of national and international education research organizations
c) the establishment and maintenance of local, national, and international educator training programs.

VI) EXTEND the duties of the General Accounting Office to include approving, denying, and managing requests for aid, including annually reviewing the necessity of existing aid and diminishing or increasing it where applicable, in regards to this Act, based on the qualifications of the requesting member nation as written in Article VII and on the fiscal responsibility of those requests.

VII) DECLARE that a member nation qualifies for aid if it meets one or both of the following criterion:
a) the nation is unable to financially meet the requirements of this Act, after instituting every reasonable fund-raising operation
b) the nation has no existing education system or infrastructure.

Needs 53 approvals this time. Hopefully, we can get it.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal/start=21
(For some reason, the search box on the proposals page does not work for me.)

Could it possibly be a bad omen that this time, the approval process for this proposals also ends on the 14th? :eek2:

NationStates Jolt Archive

Draft: Primary Education Act - Page 2