[PASSED] The Early Learning Act

[Frisbeeteria]

This act is most closely related to http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/council=1/start=79 and uses an agency it established.

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.

[Paper Flowers]

Against this nonsense. The states responsibility to offer education starts at the point the child enters the education system, what you are trying to do here is force us to provide daycare which is the responsibility of parents. You also increase the likelyhood of states legislating to force children to attend these new facilities, otherwise they will have spent all this money simply to serve the WA bureaucracy where there is no need for it.

Ambassador Saunders

[Isalenoria]

There is a clear difference between daycares and early learning facilities (preschools). While daycares just watch over children, early learning facilities teach children and prepare them for primary education. 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. It found that for each $1 spent on these programs, there is an economic benefit of $1.26 to $17.

As for your second concern, could this be averted if access is defined as meeting demand? For example, early learning facilities have to be built in regions where parents want to send their children to them but there aren't any. But, they do not have to be built in areas where there are both no facilities and no parents who want their kids to go to such facilities.

[Paper Flowers]

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.

OOC: here's your first problem, you're assumption is wrong. There are people here who represent interstellar empires down to caveman with clubs, nations of weasels, bears, robots and lord knows what else. Because you claim something works IRL is no basis to assume it works ingame or that it is true. As for the report you've offered, since I'm outside the US I really don't feel like taking the time to translate the terminology used so I'll refer you back to point one.

As for your second concern, could this be averted if access is defined as meeting demand? For example, early learning facilities have to be built in regions where parents want to send their children to them but there aren't any. But, they do not have to be built in areas where there are both no facilities and no parents who want their kids to go to such facilities.

Back IC: This would certainly be a preferable route, although we still do not accept that it is the states responsibility to provide these services in the first place, at least it would reduce the amount of waste generated and I'm sure the DoE&C will be able to find some wiggle room to get rid of the rest of it.

Ambassador Saunders

[Dimitrovgrad]

The World Assembly should not be responsible for ensuring the availability of pre-schools in member nations. We are therefore opposed to this resolution.

On a side note, while I assume an "early learning facility" is supposed to meet all of the criteria in your definition to be classified as such, that's not how it reads right now. At the moment, any "facilit[y] in [a] setting[] outside the home or family" is considered to be an "early learning facility" by this resolution.

Alexei Dubrovsky
Ambassador-at-Large, Dimitrovgrad WA Mission

[Kulaloe WA]

(3) NOTES that the parent or guardian of a child has the choice to withhold its child from an early learning facility,unless its member nation has legislated otherwise,

Remove the part in red and we will vote FOR. Keep it and we will vote AGAINST. The reason being that while we have no issue with subsidized daycare or early learning facilities, we feel that it should be optional. If you want to force parents to send their child to school earlier, just lower the age that kindergarten or its equivalent starts.

[Isalenoria]

Kulaloe WA, I will make the change you recommend.

[Kulaloe]

Kulaloe WA, I will make the change you recommend.

OOC: It's just Kulaloe. I just recently created a World Assembly puppet to handle my involvement in the WA so that my main nation is no longer obliged to comply with Sexual Privacy Act and can re-criminalise incest. Hence Kulaloe World Assembly.

IC: Much appreciated, Your Excellency.

[Moronist Decisions]

NOTES that the parent or guardian of a child has the choice to withhold its child from an early learning facility,unless its member nation has legislated otherwise,

FTR: this makes this proposal illegal for optionality

Opposed, btw. NatSov reasons.

[Kulaloe WA]

NOTES that the parent or guardian of a child has the choice to withhold its child from an early learning facility,unless its member nation has legislated otherwise,

FTR: this makes this proposal illegal for optionality

Opposed, btw. NatSov reasons.

The part in red is being removed. The OP just hasn't edited it yet.

[Rightport]

This act is most closely related to http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/council=1/start=79 and uses an agency it established.

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 access to 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.

While I agree that early education is a productive way to increase educational development in toddlers,daycares are available and its something that is private.The Country cannot provide funding to provide early Learning Facilities for the entire nation because it would be to expensive.Where is the funding going to come from?

[Democratic Republic of the People]

Against this. No good can come of this proposal. The responsibility of early schooling should fall squarely on the hands of the families, not the governments.

[Christian Democrats]

My nation plans to vote against this proposal because it believes that the premise that early education programs help children is faulty.

In 2010, the United States Department of Health and Human Services conducted a study on the effectiveness of Head Start, an early education program for three-year-olds and four-year-olds from low-income families. The study looked at 28 measures of the cognitive impact of Head Start on children who had taken part in the program compared to their peers who had not taken part in the program.

For children who enrolled at age 3:*

• By kindergarten, children who had enrolled in the program at age 3 did better than their peers who had not taken part in the program in one measure and did worse than their peers who had not taken part in the program in one measure.
• By first grade, children who had enrolled in the program at age 3 did better than their peers who had not taken part in the program in one measure.

For children who enrolled at age 4:*

• By kindergarten, children who had enrolled in the program at age 4 did better than their peers who had not taken part in the program in no measures.
• By first grade, children who had enrolled in the program at age 4 did better than their peers who had not taken part in the program in one measure.

* Only results that are statistically significant are reported in the executive summary: p ≤ 0.10.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/executive_summary_final.pdf

See pages xii and xiv.

On page xvi, you will see that the early education program had a "significant unfavorable" social-emotional impact in two measures, and the program had a "significant favorable" social-emotional impact in one measure for children who enrolled in the program at age 4. There were twenty measures taken of these children during the first grade.

At best, government-run early education programs have a temporary positive effect on children; this effect is totally lost after a couple of years. At worst, these programs do nothing for children.

Because of the doubtfulness that these early education programs help children (that is, have a longterm or permanent positive impact), I do not believe that any governments should be required by the General Assembly to fund them.

As a side note, my nation does have early education programs; but they mainly focus on basic religious education.

[United Federation of Canada]

As a side note, my nation does have early education programs; but they mainly focus on basic religious education.

That is precisely why this should pass. Why should children of your nation be forced to study religion?

To us this looks like it would bring fairness in education, instead of having the same old religious rhetoric shoved down their throats before they are old enough to know any better.

OCC: On a side note, THIS IS NATION STATES, not the real world and we don't give a rats ass about your studies from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. They are not relevant.

We will vote for this resolution.

[Christian Democrats]

As a side note, my nation does have early education programs; but they mainly focus on basic religious education.

That is precisely why this should pass. Why should children of your nation be forced to study religion?

To us this looks like it would bring fairness in education, instead of having the same old religious rhetoric shoved down their throats before they are old enough to know any better.

1. Early childhood education programs in my country are optional, so parents are not forced to place their children in them.

2. My people believe it is important to plant the seeds of virtue in children at an early age so that they hopefully will be moral in later years.

3. This proposal would not disallow the teaching of religion in government-funded early education programs.

we don't give a rats ass about your studies

My apologies. We trust social science over intuition. We believe that God gave us reason for a reason.

[Hirota]

I'm opposed...as whilst my nation does have a fairly expansive early education system, we would prefer to keep the possible advantage we get over nations whose kids don't.

OCC: On a side note, THIS IS NATION STATES, not the real world and we don't give a rats ass about your studies from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. They are not relevant.

OOC: Yes they are relevant. RL evidence can (and in my opinion, SHOULD) be used to justify a position. Whilst nobody can claim that RL = NS, it is reasonable to argue that research and studies carried out in RL can be applied in NS.

Of course, you don't have to pay any attention, but that seems rather likeburying your head in the sand because you'd rather avoid the issues raised as opposed to anything particularly constructive.

I'd like to offer up another paper on this subject: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/44410/44410.pdf

2. My people believe it is important to plant the seeds of virtue in children at an early age so that they hopefully will be moral in later years.

Absolutely not relevant to this discussion at all, but I find the suggestion implicit within this single comment that children without religious education ("seeds of virtue" as you put it) will not be "moral" is a reflection of your nations psyche more than anything else.

[Three Weasels]

Although we normally frown upon most huu-man centric obsessions, we do agree with the principle of early education. We already have our own programmes in place but nonetheless agree with the ideas promoted in this particular proposal.

[Grays Harbor]

We must disagree with our weaselrific colleague on this one. This is far too much micromanagement of local schools. Just because something may indeed be a good idea on the local level, it does not automatically follow that a sweeping one-size-fits-all mandate must then be enacted.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I think I can support this. The proposal only requires nations to "fulfill a demand" however they feel most appropriate. Some nations could rightly do nothing in response to this act, since the free market should be more than capable of filling the demand for early education without any government assistance whatever.

That said, I'm troubled by the blank check written by the last clause, which allows nations to pass the full cost of their preschool programs on to world assembly tax payers. So I'm not yet sure how my delegation will come out on this.

[Three Weasels]

We must disagree with our weaselrific colleague on this one. This is far too much micromanagement of local schools. Just because something may indeed be a good idea on the local level, it does not automatically follow that a sweeping one-size-fits-all mandate must then be enacted.

Ambassadors must decide what's the right solution for the nation they represent. What is right for one nation is not for another. The ideas expressed here are valuable even if it is micromanagement. Supporting it when it is at-vote is still being decided; we may ultimately vote against it depending on what the region desires. We only supplied our approval because it is worthy of being voted on.

[Christian Democrats]

I'd like to offer up another paper on this subject: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/44410/44410.pdf

Interesting. The findings in this paper also seem to suggest that early education has no longterm benefits:

There is a lack of conclusive evidence concerning the benefits of starting school at different ages.

The best available evidence suggests that teaching more formal skills early (in school) gives children an initial academic advantage, but that this advantage is not sustained in the longer term.

There are some suggestions that an early introduction to a formal curriculum may increase anxiety and have a negative impact on children's self esteem and motivation to learn.

What we can say is that a later start does not appear to hold back children's progress . . . Certainly, there would appear to be no compelling educational rationale for a statutory school age of five or for the practice of admitting four-year-olds to school reception classes.

Okay. Now, there are two papers against early education programs. Does anyone want to offer a paper that possibly would support the assumption of this proposal that early education is somehow beneficial to children?

[Isalenoria]

I guess you somehow missed the two papers already in this post that would refute your claims, Christian Democrats.

-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. It found that for each $1 spent on these programs, there is an economic benefit of $1.26 to $17.

-This Harvard University evaluation of your Head Start study makes some points that cast into the doubt that it proves what you have claimed it proves. 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. http://www.developingchild.harvard.edu/ ... /view/627/

There is a lack of conclusive evidence concerning the benefits of starting school at different ages.

The best available evidence suggests that teaching more formal skills early (in school) gives children an initial academic advantage, but that this advantage is not sustained in the longer term.

There are some suggestions that an early introduction to a formal curriculum may increase anxiety and have a negative impact on children's self esteem and motivation to learn.

What we can say is that a later start does not appear to hold back children's progress . . . Certainly, there would appear to be no compelling educational rationale for a statutory school age of five or for the practice of admitting four-year-olds to school reception classes.

Nowhere in my proposal do I mandate or recommend forcing children to enroll in grade school sooner. There is a large difference between the formal curriculum of school and the mixture of educational play and learning activities of an early learning program.

IN FACT if we look at the whole paper Hirota posted, we see it actually supports my viewpoint!
Most of the paper discusses what age children should begin formal schooling, a topic not that relevant to my proposal.
However, one passage discusses various studies that have been conducted comparing different types of early learning.

First, a well-known piece of research by Schweinhart and
Weikart (1998) followed a small number of disadvantaged children who attended one
of three pre-school programmes organised as part of the Head Start initiative. A
feature of the design was that children were randomly allocated to the three types of
programme. The use of random assignment is important because it means that any
differences between the groups are likely to result from the programmes, rather than
from some selective bias in the sampling.
The programmes studied were High/Scope (where children are encouraged to follow
a pattern of plan-do-review), Direct Instruction (teacher-led, with academic lessons)
and Nursery School (teachers used themes and children had free choice of activity for
much of the time). At first all three groups showed a jump in IQ, followed by a
decline to age 10. But the strongest differences emerged in the long-term. At age 23,
both the nursery and High Scope groups were doing better on a range of ‘real-life’
measures (such as rates of arrest, emotional problems and suspension from work).
The authors suggest that an emphasis on child-initiated activities in these two preschool programmes developed the children’s sense of social responsibility and their
interpersonal skills, and that this had a positive impact in later life.

The High/Scope and "Nursery" school types of early learning are exactly what my proposal is advocating for, and they have been shown to have a "positive impact in later life"!

IF you still have doubts about the benefits of early learning, I would instruct you to investigate these three additional studies.

-The HighScope Perry Preschool Study (http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=219) "The study found that adults at age 40 who had the preschool program had higher earnings, were more likely to hold a job, had committed fewer crimes, and were more likely to have graduated from high school than adults who did not have preschool." They also earned $2000 more per month and were more likely to own homes and be married.

-The Abecedarian Project (http://projects.fpg.unc.edu/~abc/) found that children who attended high-quality pre-schools are less likely to repeat grades, need special education, and commit crimes.

-A Federal Reserve study entitled "Early Childhood Development: Economic Development with a High Public Return" (http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publicati ... fm?id=3832) found that early education has a return on investment of 12% after inflation.

[Hirota]

IN FACT if we look at the whole paper Hirota posted, we see it actually supports my viewpoint! Most of the paper discusses what age children should begin formal schooling, a topic not that relevant to my proposal. However, one passage discusses various studies that have been conducted comparing different types of early learning.

Actually, if you look at the conclusions in that paper it suggests that whilst there are some studies which suggest otherwise, there is no conclusive evidence for early education.

[Isalenoria]

Well, the entire conclusion is a mixed review... but ONLY when talking about the age children should start regular school, something my proposal does not touch. The section that discusses different types of pre-school, the topic of my proposal, firmly supports the idea that pre-school is positive and then discusses which techniques are the best. The evidence the author puts forward suggests my proposal's premise that educational play and learning activities are better than formal teaching of a curriculum for young children.

The impact of different curriculum approaches in the early years
• A small-scale study in the USA suggested that disadvantaged children
experiencing three different pre-school curricula all made initial gains, but there
were longer-term differences in ‘real-life’ measures. Children who had
experienced a more academic, teacher-led curriculum at age four were
experiencing more problems as adults than those who had experienced a playbased curriculum with more opportunities to choose their own learning activities.
• A longitudinal study in England (linked with the EPPE project) found that higher
than expected progress in the early years was associated with ‘sustained shared
thinking’ between pupils and adults. This in turn was linked with an equal
balance between child- and adult-initiated activities, and adults who used openended questioning to extend children’s thinking. Staff who were qualified
encouraged children to engage in activities with high cognitive challenge. Other 0
key features of effective settings were: differentiation and feedback; adult support
for children in talking through conflict situations; and parental partnership centred
on developing the educational environment at home. The study concluded that
the most effective settings provide an equal balance between a teacher-directed
approach and an approach in which children are provided with free access to a
range of learning environments in which adults support children’s learning.
• Two small-scale English studies have suggested that child-initiated activities may
be important in contributing to children’s greater task-involvement, independence
and persistence.
• A US review of pre-school programmes for disadvantaged children concluded
that the most effective curricula tended to emphasise exploration, language
development and play.
• Children from homes where they are exposed to books, and to adults who enjoy
reading, tend to read earlier. Children who can read early do better later, but
formal teaching of reading skills at an early age does not appear to give children a
lasting advantage.

Then, in the final paragraph of the whole study, the author includes one sentence about pre-schools that solidifies my point that they are a good thing and that they are a different topic than regular school starting age.

What we can say is that a later start [of regular school]
does not appear to hold back children’s progress (although it is important not to
forget the important contribution made by children’s experiences at home and in preschool).

[Alqania]

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,

"This is simply not true and the Queendom must..." Lord Raekevik started to object before being cut off by a whisper from the Embassy Treasurer. A moment later, the Ambassador continued. "The Queendom must support this fine piece of legislation. Our publicly funded universal daycare system is a substantial expense in our national budget and with this proposal on the books we could simply transform all our daycare centres to meet this proposal's requirements as early learning facilities and voilà! the World Assembly would be picking up the tab. That would come to..." Lord Raekevik looked down on a note prepared by the Embassy Treasurer "...a rough estimate of USD $1,710,000,000,000 per annum based on the current level of expenditure, though I suppose we could probably manage to increase that cost once the assembly starts covering it."