[DRAFT] Improving Quality of Education

[Esfalsa]

"The delegation of Esfalsa wishes to present the following proposal to the esteemed Member States of the General Assembly."

Improving Quality of Education
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Educational and Creativity
Area of Effect: Educational

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution WAR80 ("A Promotion of Basic Education"),

Emphasizing that access to a quality education provides significant economic, social, scientific, and development benefits,

Expressing concern regarding the lack of a framework for the efficient and effective achievement of learning objectives,

Further noting that its resolution WAR80 allocates significant funding towards edification without such a framework,

Believing in the benefits of an evidence-based approach to improving student learning,

1. Establishes a Panel of Experts under the Global Initiative for Basic Education (henceforth the "GIBE") of the General Accounting Office (henceforth the "GAO") of the World Assembly;
   
   
2. Tasks the aforementioned Panel of Experts with the creation of a fundamental framework for improving the effectiveness of education;
   
   
3. Further instructs the Panel of Experts to utilize proven, evidence-based approaches including, inter alia, and when appropriate:
   
   1. Updating and improving the effectiveness of teacher training by utilizing experiential training in the classroom to complement theoretical training and evaluating potential teachers on the basis of their performance in the classroom;
   2. Increasing motivation and reducing absenteeism among currently employed teachers by means of professional support staff and financial incentives;
   3. Ensuring that newly recruited teachers are motivated and willing to learn, develop, and travel to remote areas;
   4. Reducing violence in schools by training teachers to utilize positive discipline rather than corporal punishment;
4. Mandates that such frameworks be revised to suit the individual needs, culture, and development of individual countries or regions of a country;
   
   
5. Requires that such framework provide realistic methods for improving the quality and effectiveness of education;
   
   
6. Declares that such frameworks shall be prepared and published for any countries receiving financial assistance from the World Assembly for the purposes of improving education;
   
   
7. Requires all such countries to adopt the aforementioned frameworks to the best of their ability in all educational institutions receiving government funding.

Improving Quality of Education
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Educational and Creativity
Area of Effect: Educational

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution WAR80 of 3 March 2010,

Emphasizing that access to a quality education provides significant economic, social, scientific, and development benefits,

Expressing concern regarding the lack of a framework for the efficient and effective achievement of learning objectives,

Further noting that its resolution WAR80 allocates significant funding towards edification without such a framework,

Believing in the benefits of an evidence-based approach to improving student learning,

1. Establishes a Panel of Experts under the Global Initiative for Basic Education (henceforth the "GIBE") of the General Accounting Office (henceforth the "GAO") of the World Assembly, composed of eight experts;

2. Tasks the aforementioned Panel of Experts with the creation of a fundamental framework for improving the effectiveness of education;

3. Further instructs the Panel of Experts to utilize proven, evidence-based approaches including, inter alia:
(a) Updating and improving the effectiveness of teacher training by utilizing experiential training in the classroom rather than purely theoretical training and the performance-based assessment of teachers in training;
(b) Increasing motivation and reducing absenteeism among teachers by means of professional support staff, performance-based financial incentives, and the recruitment of motivated teachers willing to learn, develop, and travel to remote areas;
(c) Reducing violence in schools by training teachers to utilize positive discipline rather than corporal punishment;

4. Mandates that such frameworks be revised to suit the individual needs, culture, and development of individual countries or regions of a country;

5. Requires that such framework provide realistic methods for improving the quality and effectiveness of education;

5. Declares that such frameworks shall be prepared and published for any countries receiving financial assistance from the World Assembly for the purposes of improving education;

(OOC: This is my first resolution and my first time participating in the WA, so this proposal may very well be illegal or poorly worded or whatnot.)

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Welcome to the General Assembly, thank you for posting a draft here and not submitting one right away without feedback unlike other people

I have few thoughts

Do you mean Performance based financial incentives like higher salaries for higher test scores? Experimental teaching methods like students forming groups and teaching the class and involving creative activities? Higher motivated teachers, how do u know a teacher is motivated and how easy do you think is to get rid of unmotivated teachers if they have more experience, teach effectively, and have tenure and have scholarship reward

[Esfalsa]

(This entire post is basically OOC.)

Do you mean Performance based financial incentives like higher salaries for higher test scores?

Yes, something along these lines, as in higher salaries or bonuses.

Experimental teaching methods like students forming groups and teaching the class and involving creative activities?

I think I meant "experiential," as in training teachers by giving them experience in the classroom rather than only having them listen to lectures on psychology or whatnot.

Higher motivated teachers, how do u know a teacher is motivated and how easy do you think is to get rid of unmotivated teachers if they have more experience, teach effectively, and have tenure and have scholarship reward

I meant this in terms of recruitment; the goal was to motivate current teachers through the use of school support staff and the performance-based pay while ensuring new hires would be motivated and ready to improve.

I guess one of the underlying problems is the level of specificity I used. I didn't really think about very detailed solutions since I wanted them to be adaptable to a variety of countries. I wasn't sure if making these solutions more specific would make them irrelevant to some countries, but if the resolution right now is unclear or unsubstantial I can definitely revise it.

I did try to clean up my wording a bit though to clarify these issues.

[Arasi Luvasa]

I meant this in terms of recruitment; the goal was to motivate current teachers through the use of school support staff and the performance-based pay while ensuring new hires would be motivated and ready to improve.

This is a really bad idea. It leads to teachers inflating test scores so that they can improve their pay, there has been evidence of said behaviour in my country. I suggest specifically avoiding this approach.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The first preambulatory line is illegal, under the RL reference rule, as you have mentioned a real-world date in which the resolution was passed. Just leaving it as “Recalling its resolution WAR 80, A Promotion of a Basic Education,” would be fine.)

[Esfalsa]

I meant this in terms of recruitment; the goal was to motivate current teachers through the use of school support staff and the performance-based pay while ensuring new hires would be motivated and ready to improve.

This is a really bad idea. It leads to teachers inflating test scores so that they can improve their pay, there has been evidence of said behaviour in my country. I suggest specifically avoiding this approach.

These concerns are certainly understandable; however, there are other alternatives to leaving pay completely independent of performance. Would a requirement for such testing to be standardized be sufficient to address these concerns? There are indeed logistical challenges with this solution. However, it is noteworthy that teachers, in general, are only hired from a local pool of candidates. Thus, such standardized testing may or may not need to be national in scale; it could serve merely to assess the performance of teachers within a specific community. Additionally, this solution would allow for cheating to be more easily prevented.
Furthermore, as the Panel of Experts is not required to recommend each and every policy listed in this resolution in each individual case, in a country prone to such behavior, this policy may not be adopted to begin with. Of course, these countries may possibly be quite numerous — hence the proposed solution above.

(OOC: The first preambulatory line is illegal, under the RL reference rule, as you have mentioned a real-world date in which the resolution was passed. Just leaving it as “Recalling its resolution WAR 80, A Promotion of a Basic Education,” would be fine.)

Understood and edited accordingly.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: I think the draft as it currently stands is illegal under the committee rule for two reasons:
First, it does not require states to do much other than file paperwork with the committee / panel of experts. If I remove all active clauses about the committee (A common, basic test for the committee rule), I can't see that any active clauses would remain. All resolutions need to require states to be affected somehow, so without any active clauses that directly affect the states, this draft is illegal. You can rectify this by having clauses that directly influences states, or even just urge them to go above and beyond your requirements.
Second, you can't define the staff of committees, AFAIK not the number of staffers either.

Further, I would be wary of including performance-based financial incentives. Both because they often end up being perverse incentives, and because a substantial number of nations aren't into the whole money-as-carrot-thing.
Otherwise, I think it's a good first draft and look forward to it improving.

[Cardoness]

OOC: I think the draft as it currently stands is illegal under the committee rule for two reasons:
First, it does not require states to do much other than file paperwork with the committee / panel of experts. If I remove all active clauses about the committee (A common, basic test for the committee rule), I can't see that any active clauses would remain. All resolutions need to require states to be affected somehow, so without any active clauses that directly affect the states, this draft is illegal. You can rectify this by having clauses that directly influences states, or even just urge them to go above and beyond your requirements.
Second, you can't define the staff of committees, AFAIK not the number of staffers either.

I agree that this lacks a non-committee operative clause. However, while one cannot legislate "who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths", I find nothing wrong with establishing the size of the committee. I have been absent for some time, so I may have missed a ruling on this very issue.

To the author: That said, it is highly advisable to do away with the number and make the committee as vague as possible while still allowing it to do the job you desire. I do have a further question of how this proposal will affect home, religious, private, and other non-standard education institutions?

[Esfalsa]

OOC: I think the draft as it currently stands is illegal under the committee rule for two reasons:
First, it does not require states to do much other than file paperwork with the committee / panel of experts. If I remove all active clauses about the committee (A common, basic test for the committee rule), I can't see that any active clauses would remain. All resolutions need to require states to be affected somehow, so without any active clauses that directly affect the states, this draft is illegal. You can rectify this by having clauses that directly influences states, or even just urge them to go above and beyond your requirements.

OOC: Understood. Would it be sufficient to add a seventh clause reading something similar to:

7. Requires all such countries to adopt the aforementioned frameworks to the best of their ability;

Would this count as a clause directly influencing states, or would its mention of the Panel of Experts render it legal?
Obviously, the solution you mention about urging countries to exceed these standards would work, but I feel like, for the sake of creating a meaningful resolution rather than a purely legal one, I'd like to have a more powerful clause than one that merely urges.

Second, you can't define the staff of committees, AFAIK not the number of staffers either.

Understood and edited accordingly.

Further, I would be wary of including performance-based financial incentives. Both because they often end up being perverse incentives, and because a substantial number of nations aren't into the whole money-as-carrot-thing.

Okay so, to be honest, I'm not exactly sure how debate works here. Am I supposed to find RL research on whether this is effective? I think there's evidence on both sides in terms of RL but I'm not sure that research-heavy style of debate is one that players here tend to enjoy.
In terms of logic, though, developing countries are most likely to request WA funding for their education programs, and in these countries, teachers' base salaries are likely lower than in most developed countries, so the potential motivational power would be significant. If you mean "perverse incentives" in terms of destructive competition, I would think that, perhaps, teachers with poorer performance might be less satisfied with the program, but would be more incentivized and motivated to seek professional development, to improve their methods of teaching, or take other steps to make themselves more effective teachers.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by nations that "aren't into" this kind of system. If they have significant cultural issues with adopting this program, then performance-based financial incentives may not be suitable, and I would hope that the Panel of Experts would be able to foresee this or revise its recommendations if necessary. If it's purely a government policy, however, then — assuming that it these incentives actually work, which is, of course, open to debate — if these countries are seeking WA funding for their education programs, they should be spending the money effectively.

[Edit] I didn't think of this originally, but the text of the draft right now suggests that the reforms listed — including paying teachers on the basis of performance — are just some of many. I could settle for removing it from the resolution, but that would not mean the Panel of Experts would be prohibited from suggesting this approach. I think it's a valid method of increasing teacher effectiveness, but there's room for compromise, I guess, where it's not specifically listed but it's not prohibited either.

Also, this is unrelated, but this entire draft right now is based on the RL situation, where education in developing countries simply isn't as effective as it could be (and I only know this because I do Model UN in RL). I was reading WAR80 and it contains nothing about oversight of money; I don't have a solution to solve corruption, obviously, but I think that ensuring that the education methodologies being adopted are actually effective would help to ensure this money is doing what it's meant to. Of course, if I'm not supposed to just assume a RL issue is applicable to the NS world, then this entire draft may be much ado about nothing.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If I remove all active clauses about the committee (A common, basic test for the committee rule), I can't see that any active clauses would remain. All resolutions need to require states to be affected somehow, so without any active clauses that directly affect the states, this draft is illegal.

That rule has been changed. It now reads:

Every proposal must affect member states in some fashion. A committee may be the primary agent of that effect, but forming it may not be the proposal's only action. Requiring member states to interact with the committee somehow is sufficient, provided the interaction creates a measurable burden - one more strenuous than simply filing paperwork.

Regarding the other one, the rule does not explicitly speak about prohibiting clauses which establish a certain size to the committee. Whether that is illegal or not is, as far as I know, unclear. Or decided so long ago as to be irrelevant, just in case someone comes here with "But in 1867, the Secretariat ruled that doing so was illegal". I don't recall 1867, and even if I did, I don't think I would recall it with much fondness. Read yourself some Cornford, because this walks fully formed like Athena out of section 8.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I hate splitting stuff up like this in a response, but the post covers many different themes separately.

Okay so, to be honest, I'm not exactly sure how debate works here. Am I supposed to find RL research on whether this is effective? I think there's evidence on both sides in terms of RL but I'm not sure that research-heavy style of debate is one that players here tend to enjoy.

Regarding debate. There's significant disagreement on what kind of debate ought be preferred. You'll usually find me on the side of arguing for realism and attachment to reality. The alternative is a 'debate' where there are no facts and you can just make things up as you go along. That is not conducive to the creation of any policy or to the game being fun. Instead, it caters to con artists who can wank their way out of any problem.

In terms of logic, though, developing countries are most likely to request WA funding for their education programs, and in these countries, teachers' base salaries are likely lower than in most developed countries, so the potential motivational power would be significant. If you mean "perverse incentives" in terms of destructive competition, I would think that, perhaps, teachers with poorer performance might be less satisfied with the program, but would be more incentivized and motivated to seek professional development, to improve their methods of teaching, or take other steps to make themselves more effective teachers.

The first claim, that developing countries are most likely to request funding, is probably true. The argument that the money goes further also makes a lot of sense. Consider a CRRA utility curve parameterised to 1, which takes the form of the natural logarithm. However, the "perverse incentives" which people normally talk about in this field are that teachers want to make more money. And they will spend their time focusing on whatever is demanded. Normally, this takes the form of standardised tests, which are legible and considered to consistent at measuring a single variable. I think there are some not-unfounded concerns that teachers under such an incentive would simply teach to the test (or fake the results entirely).

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by nations that "aren't into" this kind of system. If they have significant cultural issues with adopting this program, then performance-based financial incentives may not be suitable, and I would hope that the Panel of Experts would be able to foresee this or revise its recommendations if necessary. If it's purely a government policy, however, then — assuming that it these incentives actually work, which is, of course, open to debate — if these countries are seeking WA funding for their education programs, they should be spending the money effectively.

Attempted Socialism here, as far as I can tell, is alluding to (1) Real™ communists, (2) socialists who magic away incentive structures, and (3) pre-agricultural societies (no, tribal communism doesn't exist) that don't have money. I can't speak to the first two because they don't exist and have never existed. But to the third, there's significant empirical anthropological research which argues that money is an extremely early invention arising from gift transactions and that there do not exist societies which operate without money of one form or another.¹

[Edit] I didn't think of this originally, but the text of the draft right now suggests that the reforms listed — including paying teachers on the basis of performance — are just some of many. I could settle for removing it from the resolution, but that would not mean the Panel of Experts would be prohibited from suggesting this approach. I think it's a valid method of increasing teacher effectiveness, but there's room for compromise, I guess, where it's not specifically listed but it's not prohibited either.

Regarding the way in which you are conceiving of the proposal, it seems that you want to establish some panel of experts to produce reports. That isn't really much of a resolution. It's advisory at best, and I'm unclear how it would actually do things. Generally, the GA focuses on whether we should implement or not implement some policy. This seems to be some meta-resolution, where we are focusing on whether or not we are going to implement a policy to create policies about education. Normally, we use committees not as means to producing policies, but as means of implementing them. That distinction can, however, certainly get unclear. As a whole, regarding the draft right now, it seems weak and little more than fluff. Whether that is something that the WA should in fact do, of course, is up for debate.

Also, this is unrelated, but this entire draft right now is based on the RL situation, where education in developing countries simply isn't as effective as it could be (and I only know this because I do Model UN in RL). I was reading WAR80 and it contains nothing about oversight of money; I don't have a solution to solve corruption, obviously, but I think that ensuring that the education methodologies being adopted are actually effective would help to ensure this money is doing what it's meant to. Of course, if I'm not supposed to just assume a RL issue is applicable to the NS world, then this entire draft may be much ado about nothing.

There are many reasons why education doesn't work in developing countries. The first ones that come to mind are teacher absenteeism, parents not sending their children to school (e.g. child labour), government capture by élites leading to prioritisation of tertiary education relative to primary, interconnections with healthcare (e.g. an experiment in Kenya, where administering deworming drugs led to a quarter reduction in school absenteeism),¹ and a schooling gender gap. With regard to child labour, one of the more inventive policies is a conditional cash transfer programme, where people are given cash for sending their children to school and visiting health clinics.<sup>2

1</sup> See Cameron Harwick, Money and its institutional substitutes: The role of exchange institutions in human cooperation, 14 Journal of Institutional Economics 689-714 (2015); see generally David Graeber, Debt: The First 5000 Years (2011).
² See Edward Miguel and Michael Kremer, Worms: Identifying impact on education and health in the presence of treatment externalities, 72 Econometrica 159–214 (2004).
³ See Sarah Baird et al., Cash or condition? Evidence from a cash transfer experiment, 126 Quarterly Journal of Economics 1709–1753 (2011).

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC:

OOC: Understood. Would it be sufficient to add a seventh clause reading something similar to:

Would this count as a clause directly influencing states, or would its mention of the Panel of Experts render it legal?
Obviously, the solution you mention about urging countries to exceed these standards would work, but I feel like, for the sake of creating a meaningful resolution rather than a purely legal one, I'd like to have a more powerful clause than one that merely urges.

See Imperium Anglorums post, I was out of the loop and didn't notice the rule change that makes your current draft legal. I don't know why I didn't notice it, I had read through the rules after returning, but that's what it is. My apologies for the confusion.

Okay so, to be honest, I'm not exactly sure how debate works here. Am I supposed to find RL research on whether this is effective? I think there's evidence on both sides in terms of RL but I'm not sure that research-heavy style of debate is one that players here tend to enjoy.

I think few people enjoy being asked to read research papers in their spare time, and since some players roleplay as non-human nations it's not always applicable to all. Because academic, such as legal or economic, jargon can be too convoluted to follow along, some are against use of too technical jargon simply because it puts people off and pushes people out of the discussion.
(Of course that doesn't apply to my fields jargon, but that's because I think my field is important and I'm fairly self-absorbed.)

In terms of logic, though, developing countries are most likely to request WA funding for their education programs, and in these countries, teachers' base salaries are likely lower than in most developed countries, so the potential motivational power would be significant. If you mean "perverse incentives" in terms of destructive competition, I would think that, perhaps, teachers with poorer performance might be less satisfied with the program, but would be more incentivized and motivated to seek professional development, to improve their methods of teaching, or take other steps to make themselves more effective teachers.

I meant perverse incentives as used in Public Administration (Which often asks the question: "How do you get field workers to follow the goals as set out by policymakers?"). If you pay them to fulfill some easily measurable metric for success (Such as standardised testing), but that metric isn't fully aligned to the policymakers' goals, then you incentivise field workers to work towards a tangential goal. In the example of standardised testing, we know that learning a subject in general and learning to take a test on a subject are not always identical. If the teacher is paid partially by test scores, the perverse incentive for that teacher would be to teach the students to test well, and not necessarily learn the subject well. Because of issues with controlling field workers who know more about what happens than you as a policymaker do (An imbalance of knowledge that e.g. principal-agent-theory deals with) they might even shift the used metrics towards ones that are easier for them to increase.
This is all before we acknowledge the possibility that financial incentives can warp your priorities enough that you might consciously cheat - such as marking exams better in the above example.
For anyone who wants a good book on financial incentives in general, look up Samuel Bowles' 2016 book The Moral Economy: Why Good Incentives Are No Substitute For Good Citizens.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by nations that "aren't into" this kind of system. If they have significant cultural issues with adopting this program, then performance-based financial incentives may not be suitable, and I would hope that the Panel of Experts would be able to foresee this or revise its recommendations if necessary. If it's purely a government policy, however, then — assuming that it these incentives actually work, which is, of course, open to debate — if these countries are seeking WA funding for their education programs, they should be spending the money effectively.

As IA correctly points out, I am referring to countries that either don't have monetary systems at all, don't have inequality of outcome (In some form or another) or are otherwise not disposed to financial incentives. As an example, my own nation don't have differentiated pay across fields. A top lawyer and a lorry driver will earn the same hourly wage (And pay the same 99.7% tax #BecauseNationStatesStats). I wouldn't necessarily vote against a resolution that push towards financial incentives but I might, and if enough people might, you'll have a harder time passing that resolution.
(Though I do personally think perverse incentives is the stronger argument of the two.)

[Edit] I didn't think of this originally, but the text of the draft right now suggests that the reforms listed — including paying teachers on the basis of performance — are just some of many. I could settle for removing it from the resolution, but that would not mean the Panel of Experts would be prohibited from suggesting this approach. I think it's a valid method of increasing teacher effectiveness, but there's room for compromise, I guess, where it's not specifically listed but it's not prohibited either.

Yeah, your 'inter alia' clearly means the listed are merely some ways among many.

Also, this is unrelated, but this entire draft right now is based on the RL situation, where education in developing countries simply isn't as effective as it could be (and I only know this because I do Model UN in RL). I was reading WAR80 and it contains nothing about oversight of money; I don't have a solution to solve corruption, obviously, but I think that ensuring that the education methodologies being adopted are actually effective would help to ensure this money is doing what it's meant to. Of course, if I'm not supposed to just assume a RL issue is applicable to the NS world, then this entire draft may be much ado about nothing.

Most resolutions are written with RL issues as backdrop, in my experience. Don't worry about that.

Okay so, to be honest, I'm not exactly sure how debate works here. Am I supposed to find RL research on whether this is effective? I think there's evidence on both sides in terms of RL but I'm not sure that research-heavy style of debate is one that players here tend to enjoy.

Regarding debate. There's significant disagreement on what kind of debate ought be preferred. You'll usually find me on the side of arguing for realism and attachment to reality. The alternative is a 'debate' where there are no facts and you can just make things up as you go along. That is not conducive to the creation of any policy or to the game being fun. Instead, it caters to con artists who can wank their way out of any problem.

The problem is that any jargon can be technical enough to exclude players who don't want to read through several wikipedia entries to understand a single paragraph or take a years worth of introductory courses on law, economy, international relations and more. I'm not averse to technical jargon in my office, but I tend to leave it there when I go to the pub. Jargon or references to discredited research can also be used to hide behind if you don't actually have a counterargument, but your interlocutor don't know the subject well enough to realise your subterfuge.
As an example:

The first claim, that developing countries are most likely to request funding, is probably true. The argument that the money goes further also makes a lot of sense. Consider a CRRA utility curve parameterised to 1, which takes the form of the natural logarithm.

From a quick google image search, the graphs look like a diminishing-returns utility curve. That fits into the context of spending money where you get the most utility. I could read the wikipedia articles that popped up, or I could go look in my Econ textbooks, but to be honest, I won't. Thus I don't know whether your econ jargon is just there to bedazzle, overwhelm, show off or because you do have a good and legitimate point and your jargon is just how you express it.
Thus the 'opposing side' to your 'realism' might value ease of participation and inclusiveness, and not just be fantasy-wankers.
(I know that this is an argument you've heard and had before so I fully understand if you don't want to rehash it here. I just want to offer a more balanced perspective on the use of research and jargon in debates. And, naturally, if we were to use technical jargon where I'm the expert I'm all for it!)

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by nations that "aren't into" this kind of system. If they have significant cultural issues with adopting this program, then performance-based financial incentives may not be suitable, and I would hope that the Panel of Experts would be able to foresee this or revise its recommendations if necessary. If it's purely a government policy, however, then — assuming that it these incentives actually work, which is, of course, open to debate — if these countries are seeking WA funding for their education programs, they should be spending the money effectively.

Attempted Socialism here, as far as I can tell, is alluding to (1) Real™ communists, (2) socialists who magic away incentive structures, and (3) pre-agricultural societies (no, tribal communism doesn't exist) that don't have money.

Have you heard about your lord and saviour, the egalitarian paleo-anarchic barter society of magic and rainbows?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I’m unsure on where URLs stand with regards to legality. If I recall correctly, which isn’t a certainty, then you may only link to the resolution directly, not to a forum page containing the resolution.)

[Esfalsa]

OOC:

Okay, sorry if that post was kind of all over the place. It seems to me that most of the problems are due to mistakes I made while drafting.

1. The draft is insignificant and weak.
I certainly see this problem now that it's been brought up. I think I originally phrased this as an amendment purely for legality purposes, but I think it's a good addition to the draft regardless of legality and something I meant to add but must have missed:

7. Requires all such countries to adopt the aforementioned frameworks to the best of their ability;

In terms of my intent, the purpose of the Panel of Experts is not advisory; its suggestions were meant to be binding. Its intended role is not to just suggest a course of action, but to decide how WA funding for education will be spent.
My overall intentions for the resolution are to ensure WA funding for education, particularly under WAR80, is used in an efficient and effective manner. I guess the current "meta" and weak nature of the draft is since I wanted to make the country- or region-specific frameworks.

2. Not all countries have monetary systems.
The other purpose of the committee is to make these solutions adaptable. Maybe the draft is worded differently, but my intention was not to force each and every report to suggest adopting all four subclauses of clause 3. These proposals are meant to be used conditionally; hence, in a country without a monetary system, a financial incentive system would not be adopted. If clause 3 is vague in terms of whether the subclauses are mandatory in every case, I can revise the wording to something like this, maybe:

3. Further instructs the Panel of Experts to utilize proven, evidence-based approaches including, inter alia, and when appropriate:
[…]

3. Financial incentives cause teachers and policymakers to align with different goals.
I've done some more research and I don't think "performance-based financial incentives" is necessarily the choice of words I'm looking for. I want to include multiple forms of financial incentives depending on what is needed in each situation, including:

• Hardship pay — incentives to work in difficult situations
• Certification pay — linked to mastery of knowledge or skills
• Merit pay — performance-based pay
• Scarce-expertise pay — linked to knowledge of certain subjects
• Attendance pay — linked to teacher (not student) attendance

Perhaps revising "performance-based financial incentives" to simply "financial incentives" would work. Or perhaps I could word it as "policy-based financial incentives"?
(Note: these forms of financial incentivization are not mine; I got them from Teacher Opinions on Performance Incentives, pp. 1-2, by Marlaine E. Lockheed and published by the World Bank.)

4. Effects on non-public schools.

I do have a further question of how this proposal will affect home, religious, private, and other non-standard education institutions?

I definitely hadn't thought of this, but thinking about it now and given the overall intention of my resolution, I would say that these frameworks should only apply to the schools actually using or benefiting from WA funding. Maybe I should amend the possible seventh operative to something like:

7. Requires all such countries to adopt the aforementioned frameworks to the best of their ability in all educational institutions receiving government funding, unless such frameworks conflict with the religious positions of the institution;

There are probably more exceptions than conflicts in terms of religious beliefs, but I can't think of them right now.

Oh, and fixed the URL.

Also, sidenote, everyone here seems so well-read!

[Dirty Americans]

First of all I really want to thank you for submitting this here so we can hash it out. My only problem is that this seems to be yet another committee; not in the technical meaning of the rules but the notion of "if we just gather the experts everything will be perfect." That's not how you get better systems; that's how you create new self perpetuating organizations. There needs to be a "free market" of competing ideas; a cross pollination of various approaches. Ideas need to be tested, verified and either found wanting or a success. This is the exact opposite of just gathering a panel to make recommendations binding on everyone.

[Esfalsa]

First of all I really want to thank you for submitting this here so we can hash it out. My only problem is that this seems to be yet another committee; not in the technical meaning of the rules but the notion of "if we just gather the experts everything will be perfect." That's not how you get better systems; that's how you create new self perpetuating organizations. There needs to be a "free market" of competing ideas; a cross pollination of various approaches. Ideas need to be tested, verified and either found wanting or a success. This is the exact opposite of just gathering a panel to make recommendations binding on everyone.

I think that a key part of the process that you are underestimating is the collaboration and disagreement between various members of the panel. This is a group of experts from various countries and will carry different perspectives and ideas into their discussions. The reports and suggestions they produce are intended to be the result of much thought and careful discussion, considering a large variety of potential policies. This is why the current text does not restrict the range of policies available to the panel; their objective is to find what works by considering and comparing various ideas. This resolution, furthermore, does not prevent the testing and evaluation of educational techniques. It merely serves to implement evidence-based techniques; in other words, it implements policies already proven to be effective rather than proposing and testing new ones. In summary, this resolution does not simply gather a Panel of Experts to issue binding recommendations; it gathers such a panel to help countries adopt the policies already proven to be effective.

[Cardoness]

4. Effects on non-public schools.

I do have a further question of how this proposal will affect home, religious, private, and other non-standard education institutions?

I definitely hadn't thought of this, but thinking about it now and given the overall intention of my resolution, I would say that these frameworks should only apply to the schools actually using or benefiting from WA funding. Maybe I should amend the possible seventh operative to something like:

7. Requires all such countries to adopt the aforementioned frameworks to the best of their ability in all educational institutions receiving government funding, unless such frameworks conflict with the religious positions of the institution;

There are probably more exceptions than conflicts in terms of religious beliefs, but I can't think of them right now.

I would support such an addition. In fact, I would be disinclined to support this without such a provision limiting WA oversight on sovereign states. I am far from a NatSov, but as written this proposal gives the WA absolute control over all education in all member states. I would however drop "unless such frameworks conflict with the religious positions of the institution". If a religious institution is uncomfortable with the WA directives handed down, they don't have to take the money. Further, this committee must already take into consideration the "individual needs, culture, and development of individual countries or regions of a country", which I assume would take the religious beliefs of the people into consideration.

[Esfalsa]

I am far from a NatSov, but as written this proposal gives the WA absolute control over all education in all member states.

This was not my intention, and I think I covered it in clause 6, which states that frameworks will only be prepared for "any countries receiving financial assistance from the World Assembly for the purposes of improving education," meaning the WA cannot control education in member states that don't receive international funding for their educational infrastructure. As far as I know, this effectively only covers countries requesting and receiving funding under WAR80, so this kind of oversight would be voluntary, although I could be wrong. Of course, it's a significant trade-off for countries to have to give the WA absolute control over their education programs in exchange for funding.

I would however drop "unless such frameworks conflict with the religious positions of the institution". If a religious institution is uncomfortable with the WA directives handed down, they don't have to take the money. Further, this committee must already take into consideration the "individual needs, culture, and development of individual countries or regions of a country", which I assume would take the religious beliefs of the people into consideration.

I included that line because I was concerned certain religiously affiliated educational institutions would be run directly by the government. That said, I completely forgot about the "individual needs, culture, and development" thing so I guess I don't need the "unless such frameworks ..." stuff.

Also, after receiving feedback from a number of players (thank you all!), I've made the following changes to the draft:
Amended clause 3:

3. Further instructs the Panel of Experts to utilize proven, evidence-based approaches including, inter alia, and when appropriate:

1. Updating and improving the effectiveness of teacher training by utilizing experiential training in the classroom to complement theoretical training and evaluating potential teachers on the basis of their performance in the classroom;
2. Increasing motivation and reducing absenteeism among currently employed teachers by means of professional support staff and performance-based financial incentives;
3. Ensuring that newly recruited teachers are motivated and willing to learn, develop, and travel to remote areas;
4. Reducing violence in schools by training teachers to utilize positive discipline rather than corporal punishment;

Added clause 7:

7. Requires all such countries to adopt the aforementioned frameworks to the best of their ability in all educational institutions receiving government funding.

[Imperium Anglorum]

From a quick google image search, the graphs look like a diminishing-returns utility curve. That fits into the context of spending money where you get the most utility. I could read the wikipedia articles that popped up, or I could go look in my Econ textbooks, but to be honest, I won't. Thus I don't know whether your econ jargon is just there to bedazzle, overwhelm, show off or because you do have a good and legitimate point and your jargon is just how you express it.
Thus the 'opposing side' to your 'realism' might value ease of participation and inclusiveness, and not just be fantasy-wankers.
(I know that this is an argument you've heard and had before so I fully understand if you don't want to rehash it here. I just want to offer a more balanced perspective on the use of research and jargon in debates. And, naturally, if we were to use technical jargon where I'm the expert I'm all for it!)

The main question regarding CRRA utility functions relative to some other function is proper micro-founding. If I say that utility behaves with diminishing returns based on a natural logarithm or a square root, you'd be right in asking me 'Why?' and it doesn't appear that I have much of an answer. On the other hand, if I tell you that mathematically, a predictable consistent actor with constant relative risk aversion would behave in a certain fashion, and that happens to asymptotically approach the natural logarithm for certain values, it is both more explanatory and more clarifying vis-à-vis where assumptions arise.

Have you heard about your lord and saviour, the egalitarian paleo-anarchic barter society of magic and rainbows?

I have, we and a lot of anthropologists tried to find it. It's nowhere to be seen.

---

OP, regarding clause 7, I believe Cardoness is arguing for contingency based not on the receipt of any funds, but the receipt of World Assembly funds rather than government funds writ large. I'm more concerned about developing countries, which suffer under the tyranny of having to deal with both education and health as a totality, and the implementation of concrete policies. Fully from an OOC point of view, we should prefer concrete policy proposals rather than 'have a committee do everything' insofar as we prefer having things to debate rather than nebulous ideas which can sidestep problems by being unable to firmly stake a position.

[Bears Armed]

Have you heard about your lord and saviour, the egalitarian paleo-anarchic barter society of magic and rainbows?

I have, we and a lot of anthropologists tried to find it. It's nowhere to be seen.

OOC
Nowhere to be seen while former WA member Eireann Fae is CTE'd, anyway...

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 3 appears to suggest the panel of experts would have to personally train teachers and ensure various things about them, which isn’t both quote micromanaging and could lead to a lot of competing pulls on these experts.”

[Esfalsa]

OP, regarding clause 7, I believe Cardoness is arguing for contingency based not on the receipt of any funds, but the receipt of World Assembly funds rather than government funds writ large.

I considered that, but found it too difficult to define World Assembly funding that is indirectly routed to educational institutions. WAR80 uses the term "recipient nations" and the language indicates that the nations are the entities using the donations. I assumed that these donations would be routed into an existing pool of capital for edification. Thus, if I wrote clause 7 so that the frameworks only applied to educational institutions receiving World Assembly funding, it would be ambiguous whether money from the government would be considered World Assembly funding.

I'm more concerned about developing countries, which suffer under the tyranny of having to deal with both education and health as a totality, and the implementation of concrete policies.

I tried to alleviate this by having the Panel of Experts propose "realistic" solutions, and my intention was to use funding under WAR80 to alleviate the stress on recipient nations. Implementation, of course, is difficult, but I wasn't sure how much of a role the WA could perform without taking over responsibility for education. I'll think about this though.

Fully from an OOC point of view, we should prefer concrete policy proposals rather than 'have a committee do everything' insofar as we prefer having things to debate rather than nebulous ideas which can sidestep problems by being unable to firmly stake a position.

“Clause 3 appears to suggest the panel of experts would have to personally train teachers and ensure various things about them, which isn’t both quote micromanaging and could lead to a lot of competing pulls on these experts.”

I think that clause 3 is really the underlying problem here, so I think I'll rewrite it (and possibly other clauses as well). Unfortunately I'm kind of busy at the moment but I will be working on this.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Forgetting about the proposal text itself for now, what do you actually want to do with this? What's the huge problem that you've set out to deal with? And why does it need international legislation?

[Cardoness]

OP, regarding clause 7, I believe Cardoness is arguing for contingency based not on the receipt of any funds, but the receipt of World Assembly funds rather than government funds writ large.

I considered that, but found it too difficult to define World Assembly funding that is indirectly routed to educational institutions. WAR80 uses the term "recipient nations" and the language indicates that the nations are the entities using the donations. I assumed that these donations would be routed into an existing pool of capital for edification. Thus, if I wrote clause 7 so that the frameworks only applied to educational institutions receiving World Assembly funding, it would be ambiguous whether money from the government would be considered World Assembly funding.

Indeed I was. My concern is for those programs that are attached to institutions of education but not funded by the WA, such as social services (free school lunch or after school program). The WA gives money to the government for education, the government gives money to schools for education, the government also gives money to school for other things, does that count as contributing to education? If a private school does not receive any money from the government for education, but does for sponsored programs, can the WA, under this proposal, regulate that school? I'm sure the language can be tweaked to clarify.