[BACK AGAIN] Education Enhancement Act

[Separatist Peoples]

If I may,

I believe this to be an international issue because the World Assembly has previously taken a stance on issues that can reasonably be decided on a national level, but can be made more inclusive, more powerfully, and generally benefiting more people if decided at the international level. I believe this to be one of those issues. This is, of course, an opinion, and the WA will either accept it or reject it should this come to a vote.

YES! Exactly what I feel.

Much as we see in the Real Life(TM) fictional nation USA, and her own education system issues, overhead standardization mandates and decisions that affect a wide variety of schools, which are forced to implement it despite varying cultural, numerical, and budgetary differences, have a good likelihood of ruining a curriculum. For example, a fictional US state of Pennsylvania required a very similar implementation of technology in the schoolspace. The poorer schools were given grants to buy Smartboards, but had to cover a percentage themselves. The result? In a nutshell, every classroom now has Smartboards, and there isn't enough money to run extracurricular activities, many of which are inherently more valuable then a piece of technology's impact.

tl;dr: Overhead, large scale decisions on the specifics of education systems are bad. Always. Resolutions which protect access to education and preventing discrimination are great, but we should not touch the content or the means of teaching.

[New Charlzilla]

Overhead, large scale decisions on the specifics of education systems are bad. Always. Resolutions which protect access to education and preventing discrimination are great, but we should not touch the content or the means of teaching.

You know..."preventing discrimination"...I think you just gave me an idea!

[Point Breeze]

YES! Exactly what I feel.

Much as we see in the Real Life(TM) fictional nation USA, and her own education system issues, overhead standardization mandates and decisions that affect a wide variety of schools, which are forced to implement it despite varying cultural, numerical, and budgetary differences, have a good likelihood of ruining a curriculum. For example, a fictional US state of Pennsylvania required a very similar implementation of technology in the schoolspace. The poorer schools were given grants to buy Smartboards, but had to cover a percentage themselves. The result? In a nutshell, every classroom now has Smartboards, and there isn't enough money to run extracurricular activities, many of which are inherently more valuable then a piece of technology's impact.

tl;dr: Overhead, large scale decisions on the specifics of education systems are bad. Always. Resolutions which protect access to education and preventing discrimination are great, but we should not touch the content or the means of teaching.

I thought the smart board was pretty cool, but only one of my classes ever recognized its existence. IMO, that and flat-screen TV's killed the budget for music education in my school, which is deplorable.

There are many differences between the example you gave and the effects this proposal will have. For one, consider this proposal as a block grant, giving schools access to a large amount of funding to improve their educational systems, while also giving those schools the authority to spend it as they choose. In Pennys-, Pesn-, your example, the government dictated specifically what was to be purchased, apparently with little projection or analysis of the impact.

However, I believe we can come to a compromise. If we can agree that an increase in the level of technology present in all schools is a good thing and should be encouraged at the national level, would you agree to allow an agency (even a national ministry of education, if available and capable) to study school systems in a nation and advise them and the WA on what specific technological advances would be most beneficial?

[Separatist Peoples]

Much as we see in the Real Life(TM) fictional nation USA, and her own education system issues, overhead standardization mandates and decisions that affect a wide variety of schools, which are forced to implement it despite varying cultural, numerical, and budgetary differences, have a good likelihood of ruining a curriculum. For example, a fictional US state of Pennsylvania required a very similar implementation of technology in the schoolspace. The poorer schools were given grants to buy Smartboards, but had to cover a percentage themselves. The result? In a nutshell, every classroom now has Smartboards, and there isn't enough money to run extracurricular activities, many of which are inherently more valuable then a piece of technology's impact.

tl;dr: Overhead, large scale decisions on the specifics of education systems are bad. Always. Resolutions which protect access to education and preventing discrimination are great, but we should not touch the content or the means of teaching.

I thought the smart board was pretty cool, but only one of my classes ever recognized its existence. IMO, that and flat-screen TV's killed the budget for music education in my school, which is deplorable.

There are many differences between the example you gave and the effects this proposal will have. For one, consider this proposal as a block grant, giving schools access to a large amount of funding to improve their educational systems, while also giving those schools the authority to spend it as they choose. In Pennys-, Pesn-, your example, the government dictated specifically what was to be purchased, apparently with little projection or analysis of the impact.

However, I believe we can come to a compromise. If we can agree that an increase in the level of technology present in all schools is a good thing and should be encouraged at the national level, would you agree to allow an agency (even a national ministry of education, if available and capable) to study school systems in a nation and advise them and the WA on what specific technological advances would be most beneficial?

Nothing wrong with the Smartboards...except when they torpedo the music, art, and various other educational budgets, while leaving the athletics department untouched. I haven't been in my high school for 6 years, and the injustice still has me grinding my teeth.

I don't believe a compromise is especially needed. The author doesn't have to take my opposition into account. While that compromise would, admittedly, improve my view of this bill, it wouldn't change my opposition. I find vague platitudes like "integrating technology in the classroom", "diversity in the workplace", or "Fair and Balanced reporting" to be unpalatable. However, an advisory board would be far more acceptable.

[New Charlzilla]

I thought the smart board was pretty cool, but only one of my classes ever recognized its existence. IMO, that and flat-screen TV's killed the budget for music education in my school, which is deplorable.

There are many differences between the example you gave and the effects this proposal will have. For one, consider this proposal as a block grant, giving schools access to a large amount of funding to improve their educational systems, while also giving those schools the authority to spend it as they choose. In Pennys-, Pesn-, your example, the government dictated specifically what was to be purchased, apparently with little projection or analysis of the impact.

However, I believe we can come to a compromise. If we can agree that an increase in the level of technology present in all schools is a good thing and should be encouraged at the national level, would you agree to allow an agency (even a national ministry of education, if available and capable) to study school systems in a nation and advise them and the WA on what specific technological advances would be most beneficial?

Nothing wrong with the Smartboards...except when they torpedo the music, art, and various other educational budgets, while leaving the athletics department untouched. I haven't been in my high school for 6 years, and the injustice still has me grinding my teeth.

I don't believe a compromise is especially needed. The author doesn't have to take my opposition into account. While that compromise would, admittedly, improve my view of this bill, it wouldn't change my opposition. I find vague platitudes like "integrating technology in the classroom", "diversity in the workplace", or "Fair and Balanced reporting" to be unpalatable. However, an advisory board would be far more acceptable.

These are the operational clauses of this proposal:

Hereby

(i) URGES MANDATES all WA member nations, regardless of economic development level to conduct a full review of the national curriculum to ensure that technology plays an adequate role in the process of learning, teaching and assessment.
(ii) ENCOURAGES MANDATES all WA nations to ensure that the involvement of technology in learning, teaching and assessment activities must make up at substantial portion of curriculum time in a semester.
(Recommended percentage of curriculum time: 30%)
(iii) SUGGESTS MANDATES to all WA nations, that schools in their nation should allocate a substantial amount of their funding and budget to purchasing technological hardware and software that can better enhance learning and assessment. (Recommended percentage of funding allocation: 30%)

FURTHER MANDATES the establishment of the “World Assembly Technology in Education Committee” (WATEC) and the “Technology in Education Development Fund” (TEDF), for nations who lack adequate funding to purchase technological infrastructure for the purposes of education.

DEFINES the duties of WATEC as:

(i) Overseeing the TEDF, which WA countries without adequate funds can request to fund programmes that effectively utilise technology in education.
(ii) Monitoring the use of and preventing the misuse of such funds by these WA countries
(iii) Assisting WA countries which lack expertise to, at their request, plan programmes and initiatives which utilise technology in education.
(iv) Continually study and research new methods which allow technology to be utilised in the process of learning, that WA countries can implement.
(v) Monitoring programmes and initiatives in countries and determine which, if any, are suitable for implementation in other WA nations, and then recommending such programmes to these WA countries, particularly those who have requested funds from the TEDF.

You can see that there was never an element of 'dictating' what must be done with the use of 'urges','encourages' and 'suggests'. Moreover, the WATEC only provides funds and doesn't force nations to enforce certain ideas!

[Separatist Peoples]

These are the operational clauses of this proposal:

Hereby

(i) URGES MANDATES all WA member nations, regardless of economic development level to conduct a full review of the national curriculum to ensure that technology plays an adequate role in the process of learning, teaching and assessment.
(ii) ENCOURAGES MANDATES all WA nations to ensure that the involvement of technology in learning, teaching and assessment activities must make up at substantial portion of curriculum time in a semester.
(Recommended percentage of curriculum time: 30%)
(iii) SUGGESTS MANDATES to all WA nations, that schools in their nation should allocate a substantial amount of their funding and budget to purchasing technological hardware and software that can better enhance learning and assessment. (Recommended percentage of funding allocation: 30%)

FURTHER MANDATES the establishment of the “World Assembly Technology in Education Committee” (WATEC) and the “Technology in Education Development Fund” (TEDF), for nations who lack adequate funding to purchase technological infrastructure for the purposes of education.

DEFINES the duties of WATEC as:

(i) Overseeing the TEDF, which WA countries without adequate funds can request to fund programmes that effectively utilise technology in education.
(ii) Monitoring the use of and preventing the misuse of such funds by these WA countries
(iii) Assisting WA countries which lack expertise to, at their request, plan programmes and initiatives which utilise technology in education.
(iv) Continually study and research new methods which allow technology to be utilised in the process of learning, that WA countries can implement.
(v) Monitoring programmes and initiatives in countries and determine which, if any, are suitable for implementation in other WA nations, and then recommending such programmes to these WA countries, particularly those who have requested funds from the TEDF.

You can see that there was never an element of 'dictating' what must be done with the use of 'urges','encourages' and 'suggests'. Moreover, the WATEC only provides funds and doesn't force nations to enforce certain ideas!

Which makes this a collection of optional platitudes and arbitrary lines in the sand. If this is only Urging action and creating a committee, whats the point in the first place? I'm opposed to pointless resolutions, ambassador. Either make it do something useful without micromanaging, or add lighter fluid and open flame, ambassador.

[New Charlzilla]

These are the operational clauses of this proposal:

Hereby

(i) URGES MANDATES all WA member nations, regardless of economic development level to conduct a full review of the national curriculum to ensure that technology plays an adequate role in the process of learning, teaching and assessment.
(ii) ENCOURAGES MANDATES all WA nations to ensure that the involvement of technology in learning, teaching and assessment activities must make up at substantial portion of curriculum time in a semester.
(Recommended percentage of curriculum time: 30%)
(iii) SUGGESTS MANDATES to all WA nations, that schools in their nation should allocate a substantial amount of their funding and budget to purchasing technological hardware and software that can better enhance learning and assessment. (Recommended percentage of funding allocation: 30%)

FURTHER MANDATES the establishment of the “World Assembly Technology in Education Committee” (WATEC) and the “Technology in Education Development Fund” (TEDF), for nations who lack adequate funding to purchase technological infrastructure for the purposes of education.

DEFINES the duties of WATEC as:

(i) Overseeing the TEDF, which WA countries without adequate funds can request to fund programmes that effectively utilise technology in education.
(ii) Monitoring the use of and preventing the misuse of such funds by these WA countries
(iii) Assisting WA countries which lack expertise to, at their request, plan programmes and initiatives which utilise technology in education.
(iv) Continually study and research new methods which allow technology to be utilised in the process of learning, that WA countries can implement.
(v) Monitoring programmes and initiatives in countries and determine which, if any, are suitable for implementation in other WA nations, and then recommending such programmes to these WA countries, particularly those who have requested funds from the TEDF.

You can see that there was never an element of 'dictating' what must be done with the use of 'urges','encourages' and 'suggests'. Moreover, the WATEC only provides funds and doesn't force nations to enforce certain ideas!

Which makes this a collection of optional platitudes and arbitrary lines in the sand. If this is only Urging action and creating a committee, whats the point in the first place? I'm opposed to pointless resolutions, ambassador. Either make it do something useful without micromanaging, or add lighter fluid and open flame, ambassador.

Okay then, Mr Ambassador, what ideas do you propose? I will implement them straight away.

[Separatist Peoples]

Lighter fluid and open flame, ambassador.

I mentioned my suggestion already. This isn't a major issue that needs addressing by the WA. You mentioned an idea involving discrimination and education earlier. Why not take off with that instead?

[New Charlzilla]

Lighter fluid and open flame, ambassador.

I mentioned my suggestion already. This isn't a major issue that needs addressing by the WA. You mentioned an idea involving discrimination and education earlier. Why not take off with that instead?

Alright then, I'll leave this alone for now I guess but this thread will still be here.

[Bears Armed]

(i) URGES MANDATES all WA member nations, regardless of economic development level to conduct a full review of the national curriculum to ensure that technology plays an adequate role in the process of learning, teaching and assessment.

Still assumes, erroneously, that every member nation has a "national curriculum". For some of urrs, jurisdiction over such decisions lies at a sub-national level of government...

[New Charlzilla]

I have decided to resume discussion about this.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

OOC: I am, in general, opposed to this resolution. To be quite blunt, what is taught is far more important than how it is taught. Yes, a smart board is superior to a black board, but in the real world reasonable budget constraints always require the general selection of compromise. Purchasing technology merely for the sake of purchasing technology is counter productive. As an international regulation that crosses multiple levels of technology, it seems like overkill and fluff.

IC: "We are opposed to this proposal. Our education is the best in the region and any consideration for its improvement should come from those in the field actually doing the teaching. The last thing we need to do is give them bizarre technology that takes forever to understand and keeps them from actually teaching the children. Think of the children. Say 'no' to forced technology."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

IC: "We are opposed to this proposal. Our education is the best in the region and any consideration for its improvement should come from those in the field actually doing the teaching. The last thing we need to do is give them bizarre technology that takes forever to understand and keeps them from actually teaching the children. Think of the children. Say 'no' to forced technology."

Indeed; why, with just a few tweaks, this could be Advancement of Industry / Labor Deregulation - since the biggest effect this will have is not improving education, but rather removing the power of individual schools and teachers to cater lessons to the students' particular needs, in favor of funneling school funds by fiat toward manufacturers of various tools and equipment. We have to oppose.

[New Charlzilla]

bump

[Chester Pearson]

bump

You can stop bumping this. It wasn't buried that deep....

Also, your title is way to long....

[Normlpeople]

OOC: If it is still on the first page, bumping is unnecessary, and spamming. Stop it.

IC: Clover scanned the debate record, expressing relief that her foolish predecessor was not listed as making any statements to it. "This is possible, I am pleased to see you have taken a softer tone by recommending instead of mandating these changes. I can suggest a few more. First, remove your recommended 30% numbers. These are unnecessary and most nations can figure out their own needs. Second, you create a fair amount of useless bureaucracy with two separate committees, both of whose duties could be assigned to a singular, existing one. I would suggest re-visiting that particular portion of the draft first."

[New Charlzilla]

I'm back and I'm officially reopening this discussion. I have plans to submit this and am confident it will make it to quorum.

[Wallenburg]

What does this draft actually require from member nations, and why on Earth should I support this?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Formatting. I'm not voting for something with two 'Hereby's. This is because I care about proper formatting. Put your clauses in order and put the defines clause into the operative clause section. It appears to me that this resolution does nothing other than urge people to do things and make a committee.

Proposal. 1. Give me reasons why technology in education is necessary. 2. Why must nations pay for foreigners to buy technology? 3. Why should nations fundamentally restructure their education systems around something which they might not even find useful at all? 4. Why should schools waste money on technology when they lack something more basic or have more pressing concerns?

Yours,


HG Cyril Parsons

[Tinfect]

WORRIED that this would increase the gap in terms of quality of education received between students in different countries around the world, and disadvantage students in nations that lack capital and resources, with regards to education.

"Most education not taking place in the Imperium is, in the view of the Imperium, a far inferior education, simply due to technological advancements known only to civilizations comparable to the Imperium, or simply due to the quality of our educational system. But that is not something that can be changed, unless your Government is willing to cede its holdings to the Imperium, which is... unlikely."

RECOGNISING the need for greater standardisation of quality of education, thus ensuring that children in different parts of the world have more equal opportunities to succeed.

"This standardization you propose might only be achieved by raising standards in lesser civilizations to Imperial Standards, that may be entirely unattainable in lesser civilizations for a variety of reasons, or by lowering Imperial standards, which would be absolutely unacceptable, and would do nothing but severely damage the Imperium and its people."

(i) URGES MANDATES all WA member nations, regardless of economic development level to conduct a full review of the national curriculum to ensure that technology plays an adequate role in the process of learning, teaching and assessment.
(ii) ENCOURAGES MANDATES all WA nations to ensure that the involvement of technology in learning, teaching and assessment activities must make up at substantial portion of curriculum time in a semester.
(Recommended percentage of curriculum time: 30%)
(iii) SUGGESTS MANDATES to all WA nations, that schools in their nation should allocate a substantial amount of their funding and budget to purchasing technological hardware and software that can better enhance learning and assessment. (Recommended percentage of funding allocation: 30%)

"Alternatively, one could neuter the draft by utilizing non-binding language and entirely arbitrary numbers, for rather simplistic recommendations that serve little purpose. Those states that are capable of doing so will have doubtlessly already done so, those states that are not, will continue to ignore the provisions of this until such time as they are capable.

The rest of the draft merely establishes a manner by which lesser civilizations may improve themselves, and will not be commented on. In any case, the Imperium has trouble seeing how this resolution does anything beyond making vague statements on improving education, and suggesting poorly thought out percentages. It does very little, if anything, beyond establishing the committee and its functions, which, is illegal before the secretariat."

[Araraukar]

This is because I care about proper formatting.

Fortunately your support is not necessarily needed to pass resolutions.

Other than your penchant for formatting going 100% your way, I agree with the points you raised.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is because I care about proper formatting.

Fortunately your support is not necessarily needed to pass resolutions. Other than your penchant for formatting going 100% your way, I agree with the points you raised.

OOC: I'll still campaign for that formatting, by thunder!

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'll still campaign for that formatting, by thunder!

OOC: You're allowed to. I'll still poke you about it being silly.