The Early Learning Act
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.
Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Educational
Proposed by: Isalenoria
ALARMED at the lack of early learning facilities in many member nations,
FULLY AWARE that children who attend early learning facilities are more likely to perform well at basic education facilities and to become productive, law-abiding citizens,
NOTING that in many nations there is unfulfilled demand among parents and guardians of young children for early learning facilities,
DEFINING early learning facilities as facilities following all of these requirements:
(a) Facilities serving children too young for primary education, as determined by national custom,
(b) Facilities in settings outside the home or family,
(c) Facilities that educate through a mixture of learning through play and age-appropriate educational lessons,
(d) Facilities focused on helping children develop in five key areas:
(i) Social: forming attachments, creating relationships with, and cooperating with others,
(ii) Physical: development of motor skills,
(iii) Intellectual: learning to make sense of the physical world,
(iv) Creative: development of talents in areas including music, art, reading, and mathematics,
(v) Emotional: development of self-awareness, self-confidence, and the ability to cope with feelings,
SEEKING to provide every child access to an early learning facility, the General Assembly:
(1) REQUIRES member nations to fulfill demand among parents and guardians for early learning facilities, by whatever means the individual member nation sees fit,
(2) FURTHER REQUIRES that member nations regulate current and future early learning facilities so that they meet the definition laid out above,
(3) CLARIFIES that this resolution does not require parents and guardians to send their children to early learning facilities,
(4) INSTRUCTS the Global Initiative for Basic Education (a division of the WA General Accounting Office) to curate a registrar of member nations currently unable to economically support the requirements for early learning facilities laid out in this document;
(5) COMMANDS the WA General Accounting Office to allocate and provide funds to the nations on this registrar to comply with this legislation, so long as the recipient nation used the funds solely to establish and support early learning facilities.
In the past, the WA resolution “A Promotion of Basic Education” declared and legislated that all citizens have a right to an education. My proposal seeks to expand the WA’s dedication to education by giving more children access to early education. Children who attend early learning facilities (pre-schools) are more likely to perform well at basic education facilities and to become productive, law-abiding citizens, yet, in many nations, there is unfulfilled demand for early learning facilities.
Of course, in some nations, parents and guardians may have no desire to send their children to early learning facilities. So, my proposal respects local customs and requires nations to provide early learning facilities only where there is demand for them amongst parents/ guardians. It further requires nations to regulate their early learning facilities so that they follow basic requirements outlined in the proposal that makes sure the facilities really are serving an educational purpose. It instructs a previously created committee, the Global Initiative for Basic Education, to fund early learning facilities in countries that could not otherwise do so.
I will attempt to maintain a list here of all major arguments against this proposal and my refutations (but will only include arguments made after I finished the final draft.) My bias may sneak into the list, so if you have more time be sure to scroll through and read the whole debate below. My responses will be much longer because I will just make my refutations here and not in gaggles of extra posts.
Arguments Against:
1. Individual nations cannot afford to provide early learning facilities to all their children.
2. Early education of children is the responsibility of the family and not the government.
3. Early education does not help children (referring specifically to a 2010 study examining the impact of the Head Start program in the U.S.). Religious education would be more valuable.
4. My nation has an early education program, but I want to maintain an advantage over other nations who do not.
5. This may be a good idea on the local level, but "it does not automatically follow that a sweeping one-size-fits-all mandate must then be enacted."
6. The World Assembly cannot afford this proposal because the last clause "allows nations to pass the full cost of their preschool programs on to world assembly tax payers."
Arguments For:
1. If a country really cannot afford these facilities, the General Accounting Office will step in and fund them, as it already does for basic education. And even nations that pay for the facilities themselves might very well have long term economic benefits, as their more educated citizens have better jobs, earn more, pay higher taxes, commit crimes less, etc. One study suggested that for every $1 spent on early learning, their was a return of $1.26 to $17. This might be a good place to mention that this proposal does not require national governments to pay for the early education of all its children. Article 1 says "by whatever means the individual member nation sees fit," meaning that if an appropriate system of private early learning facilities exists or is created after government prodding, that is quite alright under this proposal.
2. If the citizens of your nation believe that, they won't want to send their children to early learning facilities, and the national government therefore will not have to create any early learning facilities because of this proposal.
3. The specific RL study put forth does not prove what it is has been claimed to prove in this debate. I would direct you to this Harvard University evaluation of the study: http://www.developingchild.harvard.edu/ ... /view/627/. One of the most important points made in this evaluation is that the Head Start study was largely comparing children from the Head Start education program to children who attended other early learning programs. There is an abundance of research suggesting benefits for children who attend early learning facilities in the real world, which one would expect to apply to many of the member nations which are similar to nations in the real world. For example, a RAND corporation study from 2006 (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG341.html) found that early childhood programs can keep kids out of expensive special education programs, reduce the number of students who have to repeat school grade, increase high school graduation rates, reduce juvenile crime rates, reduce the number of children who end up on welfare as adult, increase college matriculation rates and that adults who participated in the programs as children get better jobs and earn higher incomes.
4. Children are not nuclear weapons; I do not believe they should be used as pawns in foreign policy. If you want to maintain an early education advantage, I would challenge you to create superior early learning facilities for your children instead of denying other nations' children access to early education.
5. I think issues of national sovereignty are some of the most valid complaints against this proposal. However, I have attempted to make this proposal very much NOT one-size-fits-all and allow nations to keep fundamental control over their early education systems. I have respected local customs by not forcing parents/guardians to send their children to early learning facilities and by not requiring nations to create early learning facilities if there is no demand for them. If their is unfulfilled demand for early learning facilities, the proposal allows nations to fulfill the demand "by whatever means the individual member nation sees fit." If your nation wants a public pre-school system, in can do so. If it wants to stimulate the growth of a private early learning facility industry, it can do so. It is up to the individual nation.
6. "A Promotion of Basic Education" finished with a very similar clause, and as the World Assembly is still around and un-bankrupted, we can assume the General Accounting Office is still up to the challenge of making sure only countries who genuinely need aid receive it. Besides, if you buy my economic argument about early education, a more educated workforce will lead to wealthier nations will lead to more World Assembly tax revenue.