[DRAFT] Education for Mentally Disabled Children (bumped)

[Araraukar]

That your proposal would allow member states to discriminate against the children of unlawful residents in the provision of special education services might be a violation of COCR based on the GenSec precedent on that resolution.

OOC: I'll poke the wording for the next draft, or else raise a legality question/challenge (are they called challenges if they're against your own proposal?) before submission.

"Learning Disabilities Act" would be an accurate, non-euphemistic title.

But it's not about learning disabilities. It's about mental disabilities that cause learning disabilities. "Learning disabilities" is a much wider category. However, as before, I'll think about this before writing the next draft.

But you're not leaving it to the specialists. You're defining a "mentally challenged student" as a student who has "trouble with the attention, communication and understanding required to attend regular basic education."

"Who has been evaluated by medical professionals specialized in mental disabilities". I am not a specialist, IC or OOC, and I doubt neither are you nor your ambassador character. (Although the General Assembly - both in IC and OOC - would be a gold-mine for any medical person looking to research syndromes and obsessions... )

[Jarish Inyo]

I know, I know, you're in the stone age and want to stay there too.

Not the stone age. Our nation believes you only get what you've earned. There are no hand outs that WA likes to give everyone. Nor do we believe a nation should have to set up programs that will not be used.

[Thermodolia]

That your proposal would allow member states to discriminate against the children of unlawful residents in the provision of special education services might be a violation of COCR based on the GenSec precedent on that resolution.

OOC: I'll poke the wording for the next draft, or else raise a legality question/challenge (are they called challenges if they're against your own proposal?) before submission.

"Learning Disabilities Act" would be an accurate, non-euphemistic title.

But it's not about learning disabilities. It's about mental disabilities that cause learning disabilities. "Learning disabilities" is a much wider category. However, as before, I'll think about this before writing the next draft.

But you're not leaving it to the specialists. You're defining a "mentally challenged student" as a student who has "trouble with the attention, communication and understanding required to attend regular basic education."

"Who has been evaluated by medical professionals specialized in mental disabilities". I am not a specialist, IC or OOC, and I doubt neither are you nor your ambassador character. (Although the General Assembly - both in IC and OOC - would be a gold-mine for any medical person looking to research syndromes and obsessions... )

I'm just going to say this learning disabilities are a big deal. Dyslexia is a learning disability that many people have. Why are you excluding them for this help?

[Jarish Inyo]

Dyslexia was something that is easily overcome in my experience. I have it. It's up to the individual to put in the work to overcome it. No one else can do it for them.

[Araraukar]

I'm just going to say this learning disabilities are a big deal. Dyslexia is a learning disability that many people have. Why are you excluding them for this help?

OOC: Because this is not about learning disabilities in general. This is about mental disabilities that cause learning disabilities.

And while I wouldn't go quite as far as Jarish Inyo, it's true that many learning disabilities that are not the result of a mental disability, can be overcome with advanced learning techniques and, like my friend who has trouble with certain forms of grammar (Finnish grammar is much more varied than English), getting officially excused certain kinds of errors in exams. She had to be evaluated by learning disability specialists to get the official diagnosis for it. She is intelligent and otherwise entirely normal cognitively. Including people like her into this proposal would be insulting to them.

If you want a proposal that covers learning disabilities that are not caused by mental disabilities, go for it. Or wait for me to pass this one first.

[Uan aa Boa]

Miss Leveret, at this rate your proposal is going to fail for want of an acceptable label for the kinds of disabilities it's concerned with. "Mental disabilities that cause learning disabilities" is a truly awful formulation and the consensus appear to be that "mentally challenged" will have to go.

Perhaps we can tease out what you have in mind?

Looking at your draft, would it be fair to say that you wish to focus on those children who are sufficiently disabled that they would be unable to attend a mainstream school without adaptations for them being made?

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: I had hoped to get the new draft done today, but I first need to know if using RL dictionary/Wikipedia definitions on certain concepts is ok, like I asked in the Q&A thread.

EDIT: Also, as this isn't about learning disabilities in general, the options basically are "mentally challenged", "mentally disabled" and "mentally retarded". I went for the least offensive of those. Again, if Wikipedia/dictionary definitions are ok, I'll have more leeway with that.

[Uan aa Boa]

If I may contribute to your redrafting away from the vexed question of terminology, how will this read in those members states we might charitably describe as less developed? You're requiring nations to provide a mental ability evaluation for children nearing school age. I'm imaging the ambassador from Dragonslinding, in whose nation such an evaluation might consist of "The child is clearly a halfwit, now fetch me more ale!" and where there may not be schools at all.

OOC: I do get frustrated with the whole "My people are beings of pure consciousness sick of being oppressed by the carbon based bias of the WA. No, I don't use NS stats, why do you ask?" but I think there is a legitimate question about meeting nations where they currently are.

[Araraukar]

You're requiring nations to provide a mental ability evaluation for children nearing school age. I'm imaging the ambassador from Dragonslinding, in whose nation such an evaluation might consist of "The child is clearly a halfwit, now fetch me more ale!"

Well, if that's the best the nation can do, then that is it. (OOC: Though I'm now wondering if I shouldn't add a "must be sober" to the part about the evaluator... )

and where there may not be schools at all.

Well, 2.c. has the wording "to the best of their ability" in terms of giving the mentally challenged students a basic education, and while it mentions "class", it doesn't mention "school". A "class" can be a class of one student, taught by their parents - presuming they've been found qualified enough to teach, of course - or it can be a class of two hundred students in a classroom in a school building, and anything in between.

OOC: I do get frustrated with the whole "My people are beings of pure consciousness sick of being oppressed by the carbon based bias of the WA. No, I don't use NS stats, why do you ask?" but I think there is a legitimate question about meeting nations where they currently are.

OOC: Heh, I have one human nation; one sapient plant nation; one sapient cat nation; and a nation of barely-sapient large carnivores that may look a bit like bats but aren't anywhere close to mammals...

And, in that order, they're modern-postmodern tech; postmodern-future tech; no tech (unless you count being able to poke keypads with paws to get in and out of locked offices); and future-far future tech.

Also in that order, they're a regular human population of 2 billions; a hivemind with thousands if not tens of thousands or bodies; 3 cats; and what you could call extremely tribe-oriented individuals with population probably less than ten thousands.

Yet further on that vein, the culture is parallel to RL in age and variety; the hivemind is about as old as the NS account and - other than a few pieces of artwork - has no culture; the cats are a few years old despite of their looks and might be persuaded to pose for Lolcat - and at least one of them can sing; and the Tikrr civilization is under 100 years old and not very advanced culturally.

Their approach to this particular issue would be, still in that order, pretty much what the first draft (not the one on this thread) included in addition to mandated abortions where it's obvious at fetal level that the child will be disabled; not an issue since the hivemind is one entity; not an issue as the cats have been spayed/neutered and thus do not reproduce; and killing and eating the offspring that don't progress normally.

So I'm fairly well aware of the differences that arise from culture, species, tech levels and attitudes towards life and this particular issue. It's just that I'm also aware that the vast majority of the WA voters have never even logged onto the forums and likely couldn't give a rat's ass about roleplay, so while I'm going to do my best to keep the language of the proposal species-neutral and as tech-neutral as possible, basing it on RL human society is most likely going to make it easiest to pass.

OOC addition: I'm highly amused how much critique and comments (though both are welcomed, don't get me wrong) this is receiving, while the one with TNEO as the OP got just a handful, despite identical text and being up for two weeks or more. I'm hoping it's because we now have more active peeps around here, and not because it's got me as the OP.

[Thyerata]

I know, I know, you're in the stone age and want to stay there too.

Not the stone age. Our nation believes you only get what you've earned. There are no hand outs that WA likes to give everyone. Nor do we believe a nation should have to set up programs that will not be used.

Well in that case, it's basically the same thing

[Araraukar]

OOC: A new draft is up. It's an amalgame of my first draft on this, and the later reincarnation that is the 1st draft on this thread. I tried to address most of the issues, other than the "challenged/disabled/whatever" thing, which will be decided on later, depending on some more research (and me finding my Finnish-English dictionary, which I know is hiding here somewhere...). Though I was tempted to change the thread title to "Mental Students" and see how many British people frequent this forum...

[Ledaj]

Ronald Helmsworth reviewed the new draft and smiled slightly.
"Miss Leverett, I am most pleased with this draft. While I am sure that some of the more punctilious members of this community may still find errors, I can identify nothing that could be significantly improved upon. I thank you for considering my humble suggestions, and commend your work on this resolution."
Helmsworth put a green checkmark beside the draft's title and leaned back in his chair.

-Ronald Helmsworth, delegate of Ledaj to the General Assembly

[Altanni]

"Would students past the school age be able to be evaluated as well? The current wording sounds like only kids about to start school can, but there might be people who don't experience serious learning issues until later in life, or may not realize that they actually have some sort of mental or learning disability. If students past school age can be evaluated too, then their teacher(s) should be able to request it as well. Other than that, this sounds pretty good to me," Aryn says, using her glitter pen to draw a smiley face at the top.

[Thermodolia]

Still don't like the name. What if you changed it to Students with Disabilities Act?

[Altanni]

Still don't like the name. What if you changed it to Students with Disabilities Act?

"That would include students in wheelchairs or those who are blind. This resolution is about mentally challenged or disabled students. I think the title is fine."

[Araraukar]

"Would students past the school age be able to be evaluated as well? The current wording sounds like only kids about to start school can, but there might be people who don't experience serious learning issues until later in life, or may not realize that they actually have some sort of mental or learning disability. If students past school age can be evaluated too, then their teacher(s) should be able to request it as well. Other than that, this sounds pretty good to me," Aryn says, using her glitter pen to draw a smiley face at the top.

The current focus is indeed intended for children who are nearing the age for starting school (OOC: which is a wording I might change the current one to, at a later draft *makes a note*), because it is based on mental disabilities, rather than just learning difficulties. Mental disability usually manifests itself by early difficulties learning some basic things, such as talking or walking or interacting with others. Also, whether the person themselves notices their own disability is irrelevant, as it's the parents or other caretakers, as well as physicians, who can send the child to be evaluated.

Like I keep telling people, this isn't about learning difficulties. It's about mental deficiencies that cause serious learning difficulties.

---

Still don't like the name. What if you changed it to Students with Disabilities Act?

"That would include students in wheelchairs or those who are blind. This resolution is about mentally challenged or disabled students. I think the title is fine."

OOC: ^That, pretty much.

[Jarish Inyo]

Not the stone age. Our nation believes you only get what you've earned. There are no hand outs that WA likes to give everyone. Nor do we believe a nation should have to set up programs that will not be used.

Well in that case, it's basically the same thing

Actually, its not. We have advance technology and space travel. We might not be as advance as some of the interstellar nations, but we do quite well on our interstellar endeavors. Our citizens work for everything they have. They do not expect hand outs.

[Jarish Inyo]

Well in that case, it's basically the same thing

Actually, its not. We just don't follow the socialist ideas that many in the WA try to force upon everyone else. We have advance technology and space travel. We might not be as advance as some of the interstellar nations, but we do quite well on our interstellar endeavors. Our citizens work for everything they have. They do not expect hand outs.

[Thermodolia]

Still don't like the name. What if you changed it to Students with Disabilities Act?

"That would include students in wheelchairs or those who are blind. This resolution is about mentally challenged or disabled students. I think the title is fine."

You could then define it to mean that

[Araraukar]

"That would include students in wheelchairs or those who are blind. This resolution is about mentally challenged or disabled students. I think the title is fine."

You could then define it to mean that

OOC: How is it not defined to mean that? Have you read the new draft? I tried to make it more obvious. What would you want to see changed (not counting the words "mentally challenged")?

[Thermodolia]

You could then define it to mean that

OOC: How is it not defined to mean that? Have you read the new draft? I tried to make it more obvious. What would you want to see changed (not counting the words "mentally challenged")?

Well sections four and five can go. Also how about disabled instead of challenged?

[Araraukar]

Well sections four and five can go.

OOC: No. You said "You could then define it to mean that". How are the definitions not sufficient to "mean that", whatever that's supposed mean.

Also how about disabled instead of challenged?

Oh for gods' sake, just forget about that particular word for now. (The more people protest against it, the more I want to keep it... Which doesn't mean I would in the end, but for now it stays.)

EDITs to fix a typos.

[Mermaid isle]

Though you did make me realize that I need to include "professional homeschooling" as a possibility to the requirements in clause 2... I might need to default back to an earlier draft, actually, so at least you've given me more food for thought.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=To Mermaid isle in IC]

You also haven't included mental issues that result in behavioural or social difficulties in the classroom.

If your nation's specialists define them as a mental disabilities, feel free to include them.

Consider for example, Oppositional Defiance Disorder.

Isn't that just the politically correct way of saying "temper tantrum"?

No it isn't.

Seriously, your insistence on passing off legitimate mental conditions and offensive terms (such as mentally challenged) as nothing more than liberal bullshit is quite frankly disturbing, and suggests you actually don't know what you're talking about.

Special needs teachers only deal with the severe cases. Also, where required, I have an education assistant in the room who helps the students keep pace with my lesson. This requirement, in the way it is worded, does not allow for those sort of arrangements.

2.c.: "...either as part of the regular class..." Nowhere does it say that you're not allowed to have an education assistant. The special education teacher requirement is reserved for a separate class. I'll see if I can't make that clearer, though.[/quote]
Still not very clear. The problem is 2b, which states "Institute a training program for special education teachers, if such does not already exist, to train education professionals who have the needed skills to work with students who have mental disabilities." That reads as if teachers are required to have special education training in order to work with students with mental disabilities. I know clause 2c states they can do so in a regular classroom, but it does seem somewhat contradictory.

Perhaps mandating that all teachers are taught how to cater for student's with learning disabilities (see, finding a correct term isn't that hard), as well as having special needs teachers to cater for those you've identified as "severe".

see my earlier point about the broadness of your definition of mentally challenged.

See my earlier point about me not being the one to make the decision of what counts as mentally challenged.[/quote]

I can see a society going, "You have depression. Mentally challenged, get down to the stupid classroom where we'll give you a basic education. Basic in that the only thing we teach you is how to write your name and to press the button when the light flashes."
In other words, leaving it vague means it's open to abuse. Have you taken that into consideration?

[Araraukar]

Isn't that just the politically correct way of saying "temper tantrum"?

No it isn't.

OOC: That was my ambassador speaking in in-character (IC), not me speaking out-of-character (OOC). I know the difference, Janis doesn't. Since you seem to have trouble with the IC/OOC divide, the rest of this post is OOC.

Seriously, your insistence on passing off legitimate mental conditions and offensive terms (such as mentally challenged) as nothing more than liberal bullshit is quite frankly disturbing, and suggests you actually don't know what you're talking about.

Ok, maybe you can explain why "challenged" is a worse word than "disabled". To me "challenged" suggests someone who struggles with something, while "disabled" suggests someone who's unable to do something. I seriously do not get it, so it might be some translation issue (my first language is Finnish, not English).

That reads as if teachers are required to have special education training in order to work with students with mental disabilities.

Well, that would be preferable, all things considered, but not what the proposal actually says. The training program is for "special education teachers", which is meant to separate them from "teachers", as being specialized in this particular subject. Like how gynecologists are specialists, not general practitioners.

I know clause 2c states they can do so in a regular classroom, but it does seem somewhat contradictory.

From the proposal: "either as part of the regular class, a separate class taught by a special education teacher, or personally taught by a special education teacher or a similarly accredited instructor". The "or" makes it a list of possibilities. The "as part of the regular class" means a class taught by a normal teacher, possibly with a school assistant, but I think that adding anything about assistants will slide into the micromanaging territory much worse than it already is. "A separate class" means a class with the specialist teacher, possibly with other challenged/disabled/whatever students, so that the class can progress slowly enough - nothing says they had to complete the basic education as fast as regular students - or that different kinds of learning methods can be used that might not be possible in a regular class. The "personally taught" pretty much refers to homeschooling, though of course if a school can afford a specialist per student, then all the better.

Perhaps mandating that all teachers are taught how to cater for student's with learning disabilities

You clearly don't know how the WA nations will protest against anything that costs them money.

(see, finding a correct term isn't that hard)

Yet that term is false in this case. This proposal isn't about everyone who has learning difficulties, it's about mentally handicapped (another synonym, and this is actually what the Finnish term translates into) children whose mental retardation (Wikipedia mentions that as a valid synonym in use, but I wouldn't want to use that in the proposal, because it would make people think Borat wrote it) syndrome causes the learning difficulties.

as well as having special needs teachers to cater for those you've identified as "severe".

They're already required to do that, normal classroom is not an option for the more difficult cases. And I don't mean the student necessarily being difficult, I mean their learning being that.

I can see a society going, "You have depression. Mentally challenged, get down to the stupid classroom where we'll give you a basic education.

If some nation's "medical professional specialized in mental disabilities that are likely to cause serious learning difficulties" defines depression as such, then yes, they can do that. But I doubt any nation would be stupid enough to do that, given the extra costs that will cause.

Basic in that the only thing we teach you is how to write your name and to press the button when the light flashes.

GA #80, A Promotion of Basic Education defines what counts as basic education. I can't duplicate the list without making this proposal duplication. That resolution already requires nations to "attempt to provide" to give basic education to "mentally incapable" (that resolution's wording, not mine) people, but it in that clause is for all such citizens, whereas this one is specifically focused on children.

GA #80 also has this: "5. Encourages further legislation on the rights and education of the mentally and physical handicapped." So going by precedent, I probably should use "mentally handicapped".

In other words, leaving it vague means it's open to abuse. Have you taken that into consideration?

Yes, which is why I didn't leave it vague. Remember that I need to balance the text to encompass non-human populations, different tech levels and the total lack of any kind of expertise on the subject of at least 99% of the actual voters who will pass or defeat this at vote.

[Uan aa Boa]

Ok, maybe you can explain why "challenged" is a worse word than "disabled". To me "challenged" suggests someone who struggles with something, while "disabled" suggests someone who's unable to do something. I seriously do not get it, so it might be some translation issue (my first language is Finnish, not English).

This is an OOC post.

Firstly, congratulations on being able to play this game in a foreign language. Other Europeans always make me feel embarrassed at how bad at languages we in the UK are.

Part of the challenge here is that we're trying to navigate the linguistic sensibilities of a number of countries simultaneously.

It's not really about etymology. Learning disability, intellectual disability or developmental disability all have the advantage of being mainstream terms in daily use throughout the English speaking world and would without doubt be the preferred term of anyone who works in the field. So a term such as "challenged" grates slightly through being non-standard. Perhaps it's because those who make a point of not using the generally accepted terms (it's political correctness gone mad!) are, in most cases, less progressive in their views. Accepting fully that I know nothing about Finnish terminology, just take it from me that there's no contest in English speaking countries.

I appreciate your concern for the distinction between dyslexia, discalcula etc on the one hand and more profound disabilities on the other. You don't want to lump them together using the single term "learning disability." In the UK dyslexia and discalcula are specific learning disabilities. I don't know how this distinction is handled in other countries. As I said before, though, you've clearly developed this draft to address the needs of children with a learning disability sufficiently severe that it calls into question whether or not they will receive any education. So why just say that? It's only one sentence long. Never underestimate the power of saying what you actually mean.

You're not helping your proposal's chances by putting so many people's backs up with your choice of language, even if you personally don't see the issue. I think you might end up with a choice to make between taking a linguistic stand because groupthink annoys you and getting your proposal passed.