[PASSED]Repeal "The Early Learning Act"

[The Dourian Embassy]

The teaching of children that are too young to benefit from early learning,

"I wish this weren't given such prominence. I mean, it's called 'early learning' for a reason...

Still, requiring a learning facility for your 1 day old child wouldn't really make much sense, yet a parent is allowed any crazy demand they'd like. And we all know they'd do it too.

Handicapped children, which may learn differently, need different guidance that is not recognized by the resolution and is restricted by the aforementioned "five key areas", which must be adhered to even when detrimental,

"Hmm, I don't know, 'handicapped' is, at least in The Dark Star Republic, not a particularly appropriate term. How about 'children with special needs, such as learning or development disorders'?

"Children with learning or development disorders" would indeed be a better choice of words. I think the original decision for the wording "handicapped" was mine.

[The Black Hat Guy]

Some wording and ordering has been changed to reflect the concerns of The Dark Star Republic's delegate.

[The Black Hat Guy]

I know I said a week, but considering that this has dipped below the front page and has received no feedback for days, I think I'll go in for a test run now. I won't do any campaigning, just a submission to gauge interest and hopefully get some more attention and feedback. Thank you to everyone who helped in the initial drafting process.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"For what it's worth your changes satisfied my concerns...good luck!"

[Mosktopia]

I know I said a week, but... I think I'll go in for a test run now.

LIAR! If we can't trust you to wait a week when you say you will, how can we trust your repeal argument? It's probably just more lies!!!

Seriously though, this is a very solid repeal. Best of luck!

[Athenoi]

In an attempt to end this diarrhea of asinine repeals going through the WA, Athenoi and Rome stand against this bill. I will elaborate with some of the problems in the bill itself.

Teaching styles differ by nation, by culture, and over time, and thus focusing on "five key areas" prohibit nations from specializing their programs to their individual needs,

No. Just no. By allowing that much freedom in an education system, one is opening the floodgates to stupidity in education. The point of education is to build up the mind and intelligence. With this freedom you could allow teachings like Creationism into the system.

We understand that this also affects the education of those with special needs, but the vastness of this statement will hurt more than it can cure.

[Finium]

In an attempt to end this diarrhea of asinine repeals going through the WA, Athenoi and Rome stand against this bill. I will elaborate with some of the problems in the bill itself.

Teaching styles differ by nation, by culture, and over time, and thus focusing on "five key areas" prohibit nations from specializing their programs to their individual needs,

No. Just no. By allowing that much freedom in an education system, one is opening the floodgates to stupidity in education. The point of education is to build up the mind and intelligence. With this freedom you could allow teachings like Creationism into the system.

We understand that this also affects the education of those with special needs, but the vastness of this statement will hurt more than it can cure.

So your point is that there is only one way to teach... specifically your way of teaching. I'm so glad that you managed to have some form of acceptance of other cultures in your education.

[The Black Hat Guy]

Teaching styles differ by nation, by culture, and over time, and thus focusing on "five key areas" prohibit nations from specializing their programs to their individual needs,

No. Just no. By allowing that much freedom in an education system, one is opening the floodgates to stupidity in education. The point of education is to build up the mind and intelligence. With this freedom you could allow teachings like Creationism into the system.

Ambassador, have you read The Early Learning Act? Are you aware that no reasonable nation would be teaching Creationism or evolution to its youth, because the Early Learning Act targets children before primary school. As stated in the resolution, the "5 key areas" are not psychological models that must be adhered to, but political jargon based on vague current theories that can and have changed over time, by nation, and by culture. There's no point in teaching skills to a child if those skills are not what the child needs at the time. By forcing nations to adhere to outdated and imperfect standards, we do a great disservice to the education of member nations.

Yes, restrictions on education can have great positive impacts, and they should be drafted. But this is an awful way of going about it, and should be repealed.

We understand that this also affects the education of those with special needs, but the vastness of this statement will hurt more than it can cure.

This statement is not legislation, it is an argument for a repeal. It will not hurt anything other than serving as an argument for the repeal of the resolution it is about. The "5 key areas" mentioned are far too specific for a GA resolution - it's not a one-size fits all proposal, and forcing nations to adhere to arbitrary standards that don't make sense in the context of their nation is ridiculous.


If I may speak honestly, ambassador, to me it appears that you are simply opposing this on the grounds that it is a repeal - you appear to have read very little into the text of either the resolution or the repeal, and your only voiced concern was a single clause of the resolution that was not even the major reason for the repeal. While I certainly sympathize with your concerns about the number of repeals brought before the Assembly as of late, such repeals are only a bad thing if they are indeed "asinine", as you put it. Judge each repeal based on its own merit. Don't attempt to slander all repeals based on the fact that there have been many repeals recently.

[Araraukar]

If I may speak honestly, ambassador, to me it appears that you are simply opposing this on the grounds that it is a repeal

Personally I see nothing wrong in that. Many people like the status quo and dislike changes one way or another. I'd say it's a perfectly valid reason for opposing this, if not a very well-defined one.

[The Dourian Embassy]

If I may speak honestly, ambassador, to me it appears that you are simply opposing this on the grounds that it is a repeal

Personally I see nothing wrong in that. Many people like the status quo and dislike changes one way or another. I'd say it's a perfectly valid reason for opposing this, if not a very well-defined one.

Perfectly valid, yes... but until this goes to vote, "I oppose this" isn't very useful for a drafting thread unless it is accompanied by a good argument against it(which can be used to help hone the draft).

The arguments thus provided by the Ambassador from Athenoi amount to "I don't like repeals" and a slippery slope argument. I can understand the author of this repeal being a bit annoyed by that.

[Zarkanians]

If I may speak honestly, ambassador, to me it appears that you are simply opposing this on the grounds that it is a repeal

Personally I see nothing wrong in that. Many people like the status quo and dislike changes one way or another. I'd say it's a perfectly valid reason for opposing this, if not a very well-defined one.

It may be a valid reason for opposing this, but that doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with it.

[The Black Hat Guy]

Given how close this is to quorum, how little input I've gotten during the test run, and some advice from The Dourian Embassy, I've decided to start a campaign for this and see if I can push it to quorum.

Thank you all for your input and help during the drafting process!

[The Black Hat Guy]

This has now reached quorum. Special thanks to Jenlom for helping with the TG campaign to get those last few approvals.

[Mousebumples]

This has now reached quorum. Special thanks to Jenlom for helping with the TG campaign to get those last few approvals.

Full support. I wish I had had more free time to help during the drafting phase, but I wish you the best of luck during the upcoming At Vote phase.

[Moronist Decisions]

I, as Minister of Foreign Affairs and World Assembly Delegate of Europeia, hereby votes AYE on this resolution after a 3-0 vote dictates such a move. We find that the original resolution is quite poorly written and leads to uneconomical uses of educational funds and an overly restrictive curriculum in some cases.

We reiterate that we believe that early education is fundamentally a national issue.

/s/ Moronist Decisions
World Assembly Delegate for Europeia

[Crestwynd]

Speaking as a teacher, it is a fact that no child is too young for early learning. Learning begins before birth, when the child responds to stimuli. Crestwynd rejects this proposition on the grounds of this point alone. No child is too young to benefit from early learning, and nothing involving providing a quality education to all children should ever be repealed.

Furthermore, it should be the priority of the WA to provide education to children in remote and/or dangerous areas. This will prevent these areas from being so undesirable in the future.

[UshraKerbal]

UshraKerbal cannot follow the logic on this and the seeming parade of repeals being presented to the General Council.

There is no burden, even in the requirements, in excess, and terms defined are culturally variable enough not to be restrictive of a Nations sense of self.

The points made in this repeal are argumentative and out of context.

'Realizing that “demand among parents and guardians for early learning facilities” as specified in Clause 1 of the target resolution, can be unreasonable, and the resolution provides no redress to ensure that the demand among parents and guardians that is fulfilled is reasonable and beneficial, thus opening avenues for abuse such as:'

This statement deliberately omits the second part of the requirement 'by whatever means the individual member nation sees fit'. In no way does this clause require every demand of each indiviual person be met, but that the nation as a whole address demands in their policy making and legislative practice. The only obligation is that the nation as a whole find a consensus concerning the needs in early education and implement them. A single caregiver screaming that all pre schools be pink can gleefully be ignored, while a national feeling that deep fried chocolate should not be served in preschools should be addressed

Intrinsically, the Act makes allowances for monetary concerns and brings the power of the WA general fund to bear on the problem. Those nations finding that they cannot afford to maintain such a policy are given redress, unlike in other Acts where repeal makes sense do to this burden as they are unfunded and costly.

'Teaching styles differ by nation, by culture, and over time, and thus focusing on "five key areas" prohibit nations from specializing their programs to their individual needs,'

It does in fact do no such thing. The five areas are broad enough to cover whatever a Nation chooses to instill on their children and in addition does not weigh any one area as more important than the others, leaving that to the Nations to decide. Additional it does not limit this education policy to just these five, allowing nations to add others areas it feels the need for.

as an example in the realm of extreme, a nation with a strict religious bent, a concrete caste system, and a totalitarian regime could view things thusly
Social: forming caste allowable attachments, creating relationships caste mates and cooperation of those above and below your own caste
Physical: development of motor skills, and extoling the physical taboos of faith
Intellectual: learning to make sense of the physical world and Faiths hand in it
Creative: development of talents in areas including music, art, reading, and how they can be used to venerate the State and its leaders
Emotional: development of state-awareness and a persons place in it, confidence in Faith, and the ability to emotional cope with duty

Now this is a rather extreme example and not one the UshraKerbals ascribe to but it falls into compliance with the act as written. Cultural issues addressed while still moving children down the path of education.

The idea that the Five Key areas cannot be covered in such a way that special needs children will not benefit and can at times be a detriment is false on its face. Those nations recognizing special needs have a wealth of medical and psychological information to draw on to make the integration of these students easier. Another example, autistic applications.

Social: beginning to develope patterns and routines
Physical: developing motor skills and use of equipment for safety
Intelectual: Making sence of stimuli and its greater meaning
Creative: application of therapies considered art related
Emotional: developing outlets and signals for emotional release
Safety: understanding of situational changes and relating those to caregivers.

Here we see adjustments made to a specific need, and the addition of a area that requires separate instruction.

Over simplified readings used to make the argument for repeal is a potent weapon, but in the end is a wolf with no teeth so long as intent and culture are respected. With organization such as World Health (GA#31), the General Fund (GA#17), and the WA Development Foundation (GA #226) are made use of there is no part of this act that is out of reach of the member nations. So long as Nations stop seeing such acts as bogey man attacks on cultural identities, they will find that acts such as this can reinforce and in fact benefit their Nation Identity.

In short we oppose this repeal

Pam Thatch
Minister of Education, Republic of UshraKerbal

[Free Saboteurs]

The Free Saboteurs consider repealing this a bad idea. Instead, perhaps a few amendments should be made to the original, through a comprehensive supplemental act. Simply ridding of the Early Learning Act without adequate submitted solutions for making such an act better is foolish and catastrophic to the future revolutionaries.

It surprises no-one that this was co-authored by a military dictatorship. The greatest opposition to such regimes is the education of the young through encouraging critical thought.

[Point Breeze]

The Free Saboteurs consider repealing this a bad idea. Instead, perhaps a few amendments should be made to the original, through a comprehensive supplemental act. Simply ridding of the Early Learning Act without adequate submitted solutions for making such an act better is foolish and catastrophic to the future revolutionaries.

It surprises no-one that this was co-authored by a military dictatorship. The greatest opposition to such regimes is the education of the young through encouraging critical thought.

Unfortunately, amending and supplementing are illegal through the House of Cards rule.

[Free Saboteurs]

Unfortunately, amending and supplementing are illegal through the House of Cards rule.

Really? Unfortunate, but not unexpected. What's the House of Cards rule?
Also, is there a planned alternative to make for a better act regarding Early Learning, should this repeal pass?

[Point Breeze]

Unfortunately, amending and supplementing are illegal through the House of Cards rule.

Really? Unfortunate, but not unexpected. What's the House of Cards rule?
Also, is there a planned alternative to make for a better act regarding Early Learning, should this repeal pass?

Since any World Assembly resolution can be repealed at any time (except 1), resolutions aren't allowed to directly reference other resolutions. They can't have anything to do with the provisions of other resolutions either. You'll see general statements like "in accordance with previous legislation" instead of "in accordance with GAR#(x)." Resolutions can give tasks to committees formed by other resolutions. For example, a lot of resolutions involve the World Health Authority or the World Assembly Science Program, even though it came from (relatively) early resolutions.

[Mosktopia]

Mosktopia votes FOR this repeal. When we first heard of the so-called "Early Learning Act," we wondered why the hell the international community should give a damn about whether/how a nation goes about providing preschool for toddlers. But we figured "meh, what harm could it do."

Turns out, the answer is "a lot." The Early Learning Act is poorly written and contains at least one unreasonable clause that threatens to bankrupt some nations. I refer, of course, to the clause requiring nations to fulfill the "demand" for early learning, regardless of whether the demand is reasonable. Parents could (and come on, some of them would) demand early learning facilities in which children are read poetry by Nobel laureates, are tutored in mathematics by an MIT doctoral candidate, and are instructed in science by the reanimated corpse of Marie Curie.

None of those demands are even the least bit reasonable, but the Early Learning Act would require nations to fulfill them if the fevered brain of some entitled mama dreamed them up. And while such extravagant abuse is probably unlikely, it nonetheless provides ample reason for this otherwise poorly written example of non-international fluff to be repealed.

Full support!

[Abacathea]

The Ministry has recommended a vote in favor of this act to the TNP delegation.

Internal votes will obviously dictate the end result, but at present we wholeheartedly support this proposal.

[The Black Hat Guy]

Speaking as a teacher, it is a fact that no child is too young for early learning. Learning begins before birth, when the child responds to stimuli. Crestwynd rejects this proposition on the grounds of this point alone. No child is too young to benefit from early learning, and nothing involving providing a quality education to all children should ever be repealed.

Furthermore, it should be the priority of the WA to provide education to children in remote and/or dangerous areas. This will prevent these areas from being so undesirable in the future.

Teaching infants provides no benefit depending on the skills taught. There are ways to "teach one's baby how to read", but those ways have never been validated by scientific studies, and teaching them is a waste of time and money. Unreasonable parents may ask for such, but they should not be acquiesced to.

'Realizing that “demand among parents and guardians for early learning facilities” as specified in Clause 1 of the target resolution, can be unreasonable, and the resolution provides no redress to ensure that the demand among parents and guardians that is fulfilled is reasonable and beneficial, thus opening avenues for abuse such as:'

This statement deliberately omits the second part of the requirement 'by whatever means the individual member nation sees fit'. In no way does this clause require every demand of each indiviual person be met, but that the nation as a whole address demands in their policy making and legislative practice. The only obligation is that the nation as a whole find a consensus concerning the needs in early education and implement them. A single caregiver screaming that all pre schools be pink can gleefully be ignored, while a national feeling that deep fried chocolate should not be served in preschools should be addressed

But that's not how the resolution is worded. Nations are required to meet all demand. Yes, they can meet it in any way they see fit, but they still have to meet that demand. If a caregiver requires schools to be pink, the nation can pick the contractor that paints the rooms pink, but they still have to meet the demand. That is how the resolution is worded.

Intrinsically, the Act makes allowances for monetary concerns and brings the power of the WA general fund to bear on the problem. Those nations finding that they cannot afford to maintain such a policy are given redress, unlike in other Acts where repeal makes sense do to this burden as they are unfunded and costly.

But the money in the WA General Fund comes from somewhere, and wasting it on frivolities such as unnecessarily pink rooms and teaching in disaster areas (where the money could bemuch better spent on relief) is not befitting of the WA.

It does in fact do no such thing. The five areas are broad enough to cover whatever a Nation chooses to instill on their children and in addition does not weigh any one area as more important than the others, leaving that to the Nations to decide. Additional it does not limit this education policy to just these five, allowing nations to add others areas it feels the need for.

Now this is a rather extreme example and not one the UshraKerbals ascribe to but it falls into compliance with the act as written. Cultural issues addressed while still moving children down the path of education.

What of the Potted Plants delegation? Will they not need to develop fine motor skills? What of the nation that does not have art of music in its recognizable form? What of all the other criteria that can and should be focused on more than the "5 key areas" that cannot be due to such inhibitions?

The idea that the Five Key areas cannot be covered in such a way that special needs children will not benefit and can at times be a detriment is false on its face. Those nations recognizing special needs have a wealth of medical and psychological information to draw on to make the integration of these students easier. Another example, autistic applications.

Social: beginning to develope patterns and routines
Physical: developing motor skills and use of equipment for safety
Intelectual: Making sence of stimuli and its greater meaning
Creative: application of therapies considered art related
Emotional: developing outlets and signals for emotional release
Safety: understanding of situational changes and relating those to caregivers.

Here we see adjustments made to a specific need, and the addition of a area that requires separate instruction.l

What of the child with muscular distrophy who will never be able to move his body? What of the child with autism who will never be able to speak, much less interact with other people in a meaningful way? What of the child with autism who will never develop his emotional capabilities to the point where he will be able to express and interpret emotions in a meaningful way? There are, quite sadly, many of these sort of children, and this act actively harms their early learning, an experience crucial to their development that should not be inhibited by such a poorly worded act.

[Freedoniaia]

I have voted IN FAVOR of this repeal. I like the wording how it is now and I feel that the original act was well intended, but seems to have fallen short on its goal. I'll give my approval for the repeal