FAILED: Primary Education Act

[Glen-Rhodes]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Primary Education Act
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Educational | Proposed by: Glen-Rhodes

Observing that efficient education promotes social and economic growth in nations, and noting that investment in education is a necessity for continued national and international prosperity,

Adhering to the fundamental right of persons of all socioeconomic standings to receive a decent and efficient education, and further proclaiming that the World Assembly has the moral responsibility to ensure that all persons are afforded an equal and efficient education,

The World Assembly therefore

DIRECTS that all nations must provide a primary education to all who seek it, free of direct costs to the person or their providers;
- No person of physical or mental disability is to be denied access to a primary education, unless the mental disability severely restricts that person’s cognitive abilities;
- Specialized infrastructure is to be provided for those persons of physical or mental disability;

ESTABLISHES a broad set of studies that a primary education must provide at the best quality possible, which consists of mathematics, science, language arts, and social studies;
- Nations are encouraged to work with students to develop their own individual education plan that serves best to their intellectual development;
- No nation is to be subject to excessive interference by the World Assembly of specific curriculum, excluding active mandates existing before this resolution;

ENCOURAGES nations to create further venues of education, including secondary and tertiary education, and career and technical education;

CREATES the World Education Initiative (WEI) and tasks it with assisting nations in the establishment of international, national, and local education standards, education research organizations, and educator training programs;

DIRECTS that the WEI shall annually collate international academic research and practitioner studies on excelling education practices, and make such data available to nations, to assist in improving their primary education institutions;

EXTENDS the duties of the General Accounting Office to include the distribution of financial aid to those nations who cannot otherwise provide for all the measures required in this act.

(OOC: Previous debates over this proposal, dating back to over a year ago, can be found here, from when we were still on Jolt.)

[Absolvability]

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.

I oppose this proposal for the reasons the Ambassador from Urgench opposes the 'Science in Schools Act.' Which is to say that in cases where schooling is already mandatory it should be regulated (my thoughts,) but that it should not be made mandatory for nations (his thoughts.)

Also, I think we'd stand a much better chance at getting one of these proposals passed if we could group support and stop spitting out new and/or old ones. Of course, I can see the differences between the proposals (this one doesn't address 'religion -v- science' at all directly,) but again oppose it for similar but differently applicable reasons.

Then again, I think I just confused myself. Either way, I think the good Doctor's input would be greatly appreciated in some other topics though we do appreciate his own ability to write legislation so very much.

[Urgench]

Dr Castro knows all too well our feelings about this proposal. There is no need to re-stage the disagreements of the past, which rather begs the question, why Dr Castro chooses to resurrect that which is undoubtedly moribund ?



Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

Also, I think we'd stand a much better chance at getting one of these proposals passed if we could group support and stop spitting out new and/or old ones. Of course, I can see the differences between the proposals (this one doesn't address 'religion -v- science' at all directly,) but again oppose it for similar but differently applicable reasons.

Then again, I think I just confused myself. Either way, I think the good Doctor's input would be greatly appreciated in some other topics though we do appreciate his own ability to write legislation so very much.

I personally think 'we' should focus our efforts away from the secular-sectarian dichotomy and the related agendas, and turn them toward educational welfare and ensuring efficiency through whatever means. I don't personally care if somebody believes an invisible Peeping-Tom created the laws of mathematics. I just care that they understand the laws of mathematics. That being said, offering input on the myriad education proposals is low on my list of priorities.

Dr Castro knows all too well our feelings about this proposal. There is no need to re-stage the disagreements of the passed, which rather begs the question, why Dr Castro chooses to resurrect that which is undoubtedly moribund ?

For two reasons: I am willing to greatly revise the resolution, and I'm enraged by all of the education proposals popping up. Therefore, the draft is not 'undoubtedly moribund'. For the Urgenchi delegation, it might be, simply because the educational system in Urgench is incredibly unique, to the point of being down-right baffling to those nations that take the traditional route.

As I said in the introduction, everything is up for revision. But, the resolution must meet its original two goals: mandate some form of primary education, whether it be a hard-lined, pedagogical curriculum, or a broadly set one; and establish financial aid for public education institutions that would otherwise not be able to function efficiently.

[Belriel]

The Dominion of Belriel views that it is not the place of international government to mandate what is taught, but rather to protect the right that individuals may learn. We believe it is up to the nations to decide their curriculum, as long as it does not infringe upon the personal rights of the people they govern.

Therefore we cannot support this proposal, as it exercises power we do not believe to belong to the World Assembly.

[Linux and the X]

mandate some form of primary education

And that's where you lose my support.

[Absolvability]

I personally think 'we' should focus our efforts away from the secular-sectarian dichotomy and the related agendas, and turn them toward educational welfare and ensuring efficiency through whatever means. I don't personally care if somebody believes an invisible Peeping-Tom created the laws of mathematics. I just care that they understand the laws of mathematics. That being said, offering input on the myriad education proposals is low on my list of priorities.

I can appreciate your points, but I think it is far more important to disestablish any government recognized preferences in regards to faith-based scientific theory/belief. This is for sake of being non-biased, not for the sake of internationally blanketing some curriculum. This is why I will not support your proposal, Dr. Castro.

That being said, offering input on the myriad education proposals is low on my list of priorities.

Then why should anybody pay attention to yours? Also, if you had paid more attention, your own proposal would have been far more reasonable I think.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
mandate some form of primary education


And that's where you lose my support.

Precisely.

[Urgench]

As I said in the introduction, everything is up for revision. But, the resolution must meet its original two goals: mandate some form of primary education, whether it be a hard-lined, pedagogical curriculum, or a broadly set one; and establish financial aid for public education institutions that would otherwise not be able to function efficiently.

We will support the first of these aims if the definition of what constitutes a "primary education" is broad enough to encompass alternative methods of education which achieve the same ends by different means.

The second, as we have said innumerable times, we would wholeheartedly support.


Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

I can appreciate your points, but I think it is far more important to disestablish any government recognized preferences in regards to faith-based scientific theory/belief. This is for sake of being non-biased, not for the sake of internationally blanketing some curriculum. This is why I will not support your proposal, Dr. Castro.

The assertion that sectarian institutions are incapable of providing unbiased education is the very reason why a proposal that bans sectarian institutions will never become law. I am not lobbying for the Absolvability vote, if that vote is contingent on the furthering of a secular agenda, even though I have supported such measures during my tenure as the Secretary of Education of Glen-Rhodes. Such undiplomatic measures threaten the unique position of neutrality the World Assembly has taken on the separation of religion and government, a position that I wholeheartedly agree with.

We will support the first of these aims if the definition of what constitutes a "primary education" is broad enough to encompass alternative methods of education which achieve the same ends by different means. ... The second, as we have said innumerable times, we would wholeheartedly support.

I have completely rewritten the legislation, which for now is the skeleton proposal. I've done my best to recall your position on hard-lined curriculum, and to try and bridge the gap between that and free-form education. I am eagerly awaiting your comments.

[Urgench]

The E.S.C. is an interesting new committee, we would be happy to see it's role expanded. We would suggest that it take an active role in collecting academic research and "real world" teaching knowledge of best practice.

Might we suggest this wording...

CREATES the Education Services Committee and tasks it with assisting nations in the establishment of international, national, and local education standards, education research organizations, and educator training programs. The WAESC shall collate academic research and practitioner studies on best practice in education, and make such data available to w.a. member states to assist them in making improvements in their provision of primary education.

Or words to this effect.


Yours,

[Secruss]

Against. Some of our countries are anarchy. Others are business-ruled, laissez-faire corporate states. The idea is good, but there is little practical way to implement it across the board.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The E.S.C. is an interesting new committee, we would be happy to see it's role expanded. We would suggest that it take an active role in collecting academic research and "real world" teaching knowledge of best practice.

Thank you for this suggestion, Ambassador Mongkha. I have worked it in the resolution, using some of the wording you've provided.

Against. Some of our countries are anarchy. Others are business-ruled, laissez-faire corporate states. The idea is good, but there is little practical way to implement it across the board.

With all due respect, and knowing that I may be drifting in to undiplomatic waters, might I ask why anarchies and laissez-fair corporate states would join the World Assembly, an institution founded on the principle of government intervention, in the first place? There are little practical ways to implement much of the resolutions passed by the General Assembly in such states. In those cases, should an anarchist or corporate state choose to stay in the World Assembly, their governments (or the lackthereof) are required to change.

[Bears Armed]

With all due respect, and knowing that I may be drifting in to undiplomatic waters, might I ask why anarchies and laissez-fair corporate states would join the World Assembly, an institution founded on the principle of government intervention, in the first place? There are little practical ways to implement much of the resolutions passed by the General Assembly in such states. In those cases, should an anarchist or corporate state choose to stay in the World Assembly, their governments (or the lackthereof) are required to change.

The World Assembly is not "founded on the principle of government intervention", it is founded on the principle of "changing the world, one resolution at a time"... and there is no inherent reason why the range of resolutions passed should not be restricted in scope to those matters that affect the interactions between the member-nations, without intruding into their purely 'internal' affairs.

[Urgench]

With all due respect, and knowing that I may be drifting in to undiplomatic waters, might I ask why anarchies and laissez-fair corporate states would join the World Assembly, an institution founded on the principle of government intervention, in the first place? There are little practical ways to implement much of the resolutions passed by the General Assembly in such states. In those cases, should an anarchist or corporate state choose to stay in the World Assembly, their governments (or the lackthereof) are required to change.

The World Assembly is not "founded on the principle of government intervention", it is founded on the principle of "changing the world, one resolution at a time"... and there is no inherent reason why the range of resolutions passed should not be restricted in scope to those matters that affect the interactions between the member-nations, without intruding into their purely 'internal' affairs.

That presumes that the interactions between states are a matter of common interest, and that they have no effect on the internal situations within states. There are many who would see the interference of the W.A. in the relations between states as a grievous and unwarranted intervention and an abridgement of national prerogative, and the effects that this intervention then has on the internal conditions of the nations effected is undoubtedly an example of intrusion in to "their purely internal affairs". Foreign policy and international relations are rarely if ever utterly separable from internal affairs.

Essentially there is no such thing as purely internal or purely international. That distinction is spurious.

Yours,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

(clip) ...ESTABLISHES a broad set of studies that a primary education must provide at the best quality possible, which consists of mathematics, science, language arts, and social studies; nations are encouraged to work with students to develop their own individual education plan that serves best to their intellectual development; no nation is to be subject to excessive interference by the World Assembly of specific curriculum...

Maybe reword Science to Philosophy, as it sounds a bit more open.

Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

The World Assembly is not "founded on the principle of government intervention", it is founded on the principle of "changing the world, one resolution at a time"... and there is no inherent reason why the range of resolutions passed should not be restricted in scope to those matters that affect the interactions between the member-nations, without intruding into their purely 'internal' affairs.

If we limit ourselves to purely international affairs -- although Ambassador Mongkha has excellently informed us that there are no purely international or purely internal affairs -- we restrict ourselves from passing resolutions such as the Charter of Civil Rights, Restriction on Child Labor, the Workplace Safety Standards Act, the Living Wage Act, and the myriad resolutions that intervene in internal affairs. The forty-seven resolutions, of which most, if not all, intervene in these internal affairs some how, serve very much to the fact that World Assembly is an organization founded on the principle of government intervention. I see no compelling reason why it shouldn't be.

Maybe reword Science to Philosophy, as it sounds a bit more open.

Forgive me for being crass, Sarah, but I have no other way to put this: I have never heard of biological philosophy.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Since I was able to secure my position in Glen-Rhodes' new coalition, I suppose I'll dust off the cover of this old book. Until "Access to Science in Schools" is repealed, I cannot mandate science education as I had hoped I would have been able to. Nonetheless, I still believe this is the most exemplary education mandate this body has seen to-date, and it would be a shame if it sat in my desk drawer for years to come.

Please offer your opinions. I would certainly like to the submit this for vote soon.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Absolvability]

(As you might've gathered, I've got a few more days to hang around before I get sent off. 'Hurry up and wait,' as it were.)

Since I was able to secure my position in Glen-Rhodes' new coalition, I suppose I'll dust off the cover of this old book. Until "Access to Science in Schools" is repealed, I cannot mandate science education as I had hoped I would have been able to.

While I'm aware that repealing AtSiS fits your agenda, I do not believe it would be strictly necessary to repeal the existing resolution in order to implement your own.

Generally speaking, while I'm aware of the rules in regards to HoC and duplication, I don't believe simply mentioning the word 'science' would be an infraction. AtSiS is quite specific, and goes into great detail. Your own proposal is very general and does not include details that in any way conflict with AtSiS. Furthermore, since AtSiS only mandates inclusion of science into public schools, and your proposal makes no distinction, it seems that they're addressing slightly different matters anyway.

[New Rockport]

We in New Rockport have no national education system. We could support this resolution if it allowed for education to be provided by sub-national entities rather than the federal government.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly, Republic of New Rockport
Delegate to the World Assembly, Region of Albion

[Glen-Rhodes]

We in New Rockport have no national education system. We could support this resolution if it allowed for education to be provided by sub-national entities rather than the federal government.

The resolution doesn't restrict 'sub-national entities' from providing an education, nor does it require it. If a nation opts to place the burden on locales, then so be it, so long as the burden is being placed somewhere.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Honoured ambassador Dr. Castro, please accept my apologies for being busy. It may be a good idea to mandate that attendance of primary schools by children should be compulsory. This would be a sure fire way to tackle world illiteracy.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Honoured ambassador Dr. Castro, please accept my apologies for being busy. It may be a good idea to mandate that attendance of primary schools by children should be compulsory. This would be a sure fire way to tackle world illiteracy.

While attendance would be ideally mandatory, I sure that would be contentious issue. I'm avoiding going in to strict details, since education system vary wildly across the spectrum, and mandatory attendance may not fit in with certain cultural rules. The Primary Education Act stops at forcing governments to provide for a basic education; if citizens wish to utilize this, then they will attend on their own free will. However, nothing is preventing governments from instituting their own attendance laws. I would imagine if attendance laws were best, the Education Services Committee would help formulate them, or at least suggest them.


[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Qumkent]

Honoured ambassador Dr. Castro, please accept my apologies for being busy. It may be a good idea to mandate that attendance of primary schools by children should be compulsory. This would be a sure fire way to tackle world illiteracy.

While attendance would be ideally mandatory, I sure that would be contentious issue. I'm avoiding going in to strict details, since education system vary wildly across the spectrum, and mandatory attendance may not fit in with certain cultural rules. The Primary Education Act stops at forcing governments to provide for a basic education; if citizens wish to utilize this, then they will attend on their own free will. However, nothing is preventing governments from instituting their own attendance laws.


[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

It is also worth remembering that the WA has already legislated for the right of children to receive an education. That right combined with the provisions contained in this statute would undoubtedly see all children of member states achieve a primary education.


Yours,

[Morlago]

DIRECTS that all nations must provide a primary education to all who seek it, free of direct costs to the person or their providers; no person of physical or mental disability is to be denied access to a primary education, unless the mental disability severely restricts that person’s cognitive abilities; specialized infrastructure is to be provided for those persons of physical or mental disability;

I cannot support this clause as my taxpayers are already furious with the current tax rate.

[Glen-Rhodes]

DIRECTS that all nations must provide a primary education to all who seek it, free of direct costs to the person or their providers; no person of physical or mental disability is to be denied access to a primary education, unless the mental disability severely restricts that person’s cognitive abilities; specialized infrastructure is to be provided for those persons of physical or mental disability;

I cannot support this clause as my taxpayers are already furious with the current tax rate.

If you don't already have those things, and cannot reasonably afford them, then perhaps this clause is what you're looking for:

EXTENDS the duties of the General Accounting Office to include the distribution of financial aid to those nations who cannot otherwise provide for all the measures required in this act.

Of course, Morlago is going to have to convince the GAO of a need for this financial assistance. If raising the tax rate would be harmful to Morlago's economy, then I'm sure they would consider that in their decision. But if it's simply because taxpayers might get a bad taste in their mouths...

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]