[PASSED] Promoting Natural Sciences in Schools

[Kenmoria]

Promoting Natural Sciences in Schools
Category: Education and Creativity | AoE: Educational

The General Assembly,

Aware that all children deserve a balanced and varied education covering different disciplines, in order to gain a wide breadth of knowledge,

Highlighting the sciences as subjects crucial to the development of informed thinking and worldviews, due to being the area of education that concerns the natural world of member nations’ children,

Understanding how an education in science enables a child to pursue far more careers than they would be able to otherwise, as a direct result of the universality of the skills gained by studying the sciences;

Acknowledging the lack of currently-active, comprehensive legislation on the topic of allowing the children of member nations to freely learn about this vital area, and

Wishing to promote a scientific education in all member states, whilst remaining mindful of differing traditions and religions,

Hereby,

1. Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:

1. a ‘school’ is an institute of education for minors, excluding both those that specialise in a particular subject and are in addition to standard education, for example performing arts schools, and those that are for minors of a very young age; and
   
   
2. the ‘natural sciences’ are those subjects consisting of information gained from empirical evidence or logical deductions about natural phenomena, such as biology, geology, chemistry or physics;

2. Mandates that all schools under the jurisdiction of member states must either offer classes in multiple branches of the natural sciences, or a series of general classes in science as a whole, to its students, and that these classes must be of a non-trivial length of time, and contain relevant educational content;

3. Further mandates that any adults within member nations that are undergoing education of a very similar nature to that of schools, either due to receiving poor results upon completion of standard education or due to never having been taught basic subjects, must also be offered science in fulfilment with the principles of clause 2;

4. Encourages member nations to make these science classes mandatory for students to learn at early levels of education;

5. Prohibits any school within a member nation from deliberately disseminating false information in science classes, excluding abstractions or simplifications which aid learning;

6. Clarifies that subjects other than science are not covered by this resolution, and emphasises specifically that religious education may cover whatever beliefs are chosen by the schools or member states;

7. Requires that all member nations fund the science classes mandated by this resolution to a degree that enables appropriate learning opportunities, unless the school is of a private nature, in which case funding is urged but not mandated; and

8. Authorises the World Assembly General Fund to provide money to member states’ governments if they are genuinely unable to fully fund science classes, while still fulfilling the basic obligations of state, in accordance with the above clause, with the condition that member nations must still provide the highest degree of funding they are reasonably able to, and that requests must be logged and frivolous or unnecessary requests of funding denied.

[Araraukar]

6. Requires that all member nations fund the science classes mandated by this resolution to a degree that enables basic learning, unless the government is unable to reasonably do so due to a shortage of money; and

7. Authorises the use of the World Assembly General Fund in the aforementioned case only as an assistance to, rather than a replacement of, member states.

OOC: More feedback to come when I'm not as zombified as currently, but these two kind of stuck out. Why do science classes need specific funding? And also the government not having money is not the same as the state not having money. Also, the General Fund is for all practical purposes a committee of its own, so rather than authorizing its use, you could authorize it to provide monetary assistance, though I would add some requirement like the state providing at least half the funding.

Oh and the definition should probably read "excluding those that specialise in a particular subject and in addition to standard education", because there are actual normal RL schools that specialize in a certain subject, yet are otherwise entirely normal state-funded schools bound to the usual curriculum requirements. Your current wording makes it look like such schools wouldn't be affected by this.

[Kenmoria]

6. Requires that all member nations fund the science classes mandated by this resolution to a degree that enables basic learning, unless the government is unable to reasonably do so due to a shortage of money; and

7. Authorises the use of the World Assembly General Fund in the aforementioned case only as an assistance to, rather than a replacement of, member states.

OOC: More feedback to come when I'm not as zombified as currently, but these two kind of stuck out. Why do science classes need specific funding? And also the government not having money is not the same as the state not having money. Also, the General Fund is for all practical purposes a committee of its own, so rather than authorizing its use, you could authorize it to provide monetary assistance, though I would add some requirement like the state providing at least half the funding.

(OOC: Science classes, along with subjects generally, require funding in order to effectively function. In particular, there are a lot more costly elements to consider due to the hands-on nature of the science as opposed to Maths, Drama or a foreign language. I’ve changed the wording in response to your feedback.

Oh and the definition should probably read "excluding those that specialise in a particular subject and in addition to standard education", because there are actual normal RL schools that specialize in a certain subject, yet are otherwise entirely normal state-funded schools bound to the usual curriculum requirements. Your current wording makes it look like such schools wouldn't be affected by this.

That wasn’t the attention. I meant to exclude things like Summer schools in performing arts, which I went to as a child, which operated solely in addition to normal schooling.)

[The New Nordic Union]

Promoting Science Education

[...]

Acknowledging the lack of currently-active legislation on the topic of allowing the children of member nations to freely learn about this vital area, and

OOC: I assume by science/sciences throughout the proposal, you mean natural sciences? If so, maybe this should be made clearer.

Also, albeit there is no comprehensive legislation on the topic, we have some for specific areas, e.g., GAR #369 ('establishes that such reproductive education courses must thoroughly educate...') , and even GAR #80, which although silent on science in general, mandates education to achieve 'An accurate understanding of ecological life, nature and the environment'.

[Kenmoria]

Promoting Science Education

[...]

Acknowledging the lack of currently-active legislation on the topic of allowing the children of member nations to freely learn about this vital area, and

OOC: I assume by science/sciences throughout the proposal, you mean natural sciences? If so, maybe this should be made clearer.

(OOC: I’ll work on this.

Also, albeit there is no comprehensive legislation on the topic, we have some for specific areas, e.g., GAR #369 ('establishes that such reproductive education courses must thoroughly educate...') , and even GAR #80, which although silent on science in general, mandates education to achieve 'An accurate understanding of ecological life, nature and the environment'.

I was referring to specifically to the former legislation ‘Access to Science in Schools’, in particular the fact that it was repealed without a replacement. I will make sure to add in ‘comprehensive’ to the clause though - good spot.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: I assume by science/sciences throughout the proposal, you mean natural sciences? If so, maybe this should be made clearer.

(OOC: I’ll work on this.)

OOC: Maybe "Promotion of Natural Sciences in Schools" as title?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I’ll work on this.)

OOC: Maybe "Promotion of Natural Sciences in Schools" as title?

(OOC: Done,)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Your text right now draws a distinction between schools in member nations and those not in member nations, and then uses the words "all schools". Based on prior precedent, that could be considered to overstep the WA's authority.

[Kenmoria]

Your text right now draws a distinction between schools in member nations and those not in member nations, and then uses the words "all schools". Based on prior precedent, that could be considered to overstep the WA's authority.

(OOC: This has been fixed, thank you.)

[Auralia]

I don't really understand this obsession with micromanaging schools, rather than simply requiring that children be taught the natural sciences. Why should private schools or homeschoolers be exempt from such a mandate?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't really understand this obsession with micromanaging schools, rather than simply requiring that children be taught the natural sciences. Why should private schools or homeschoolers be exempt from such a mandate?

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: I concur with these remarks.

[Bananaistan]

I don't really understand this obsession with micromanaging schools, rather than simply requiring that children be taught the natural sciences. Why should private schools or homeschoolers be exempt from such a mandate?

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: I concur with these remarks.

"As do I."

- Ted

[Youssath]

Nothing too incriminating in this resolution, and from what I can tell, this is nothing more than just a "promotion" of the natural sciences in schools. I will support this.

However, my main concerns with this resolution (although it is not decisive enough for me to abstain or to vote nay) is that this resolution does not consider the "promotion of proper scientific education". As different WA nations have different educational budgets, a "promotion" of scientific education" can simply be a holistic scientific education and degree to even art majors or is simply a 30-minute module for everyone to complete. There are way too many loopholes to circumvent what this resolution is trying to promote here, and hence this is a glaring issue that just won't do.

I don't really understand this obsession with micromanaging schools, rather than simply requiring that children be taught the natural sciences. Why should private schools or homeschoolers be exempt from such a mandate?

I concur with these remarks as well. Excluding these educational institutions would simply defeat the purpose of promoting natural sciences in schools.

[Kenmoria]

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: I concur with these remarks.

"As do I."

- Ted

“It was something included in prior legislation on this topic. However, since it is clearly very unpopular, this will be changed.”

Nothing too incriminating in this resolution, and from what I can tell, this is nothing more than just a "promotion" of the natural sciences in schools. I will support this.

However, my main concerns with this resolution (although it is not decisive enough for me to abstain or to vote nay) is that this resolution does not consider the "promotion of proper scientific education". As different WA nations have different educational budgets, a "promotion" of scientific education" can simply be a holistic scientific education and degree to even art majors or is simply a 30-minute module for everyone to complete. There are way too many loopholes to circumvent what this resolution is trying to promote here, and hence this is a glaring issue that just won't do.

“I will try to fix this. The issue is that I worry about imposing unnecessary restrictions that may make the proposal one-size-fits all. For example, requiring regular lessons in science would go against the philosophy of a non-timetabled school. Nevertheless, I can try and impose some restrictions.”

[Youssath]

“I will try to fix this. The issue is that I worry about imposing unnecessary restrictions that may make the proposal one-size-fits all. For example, requiring regular lessons in science would go against the philosophy of a non-timetabled school. Nevertheless, I can try and impose some restrictions.”

"I have some suggestions that you can consider if you are interested in this resolution:"

• Requiring natural science subjects to be taught as general knowledge to Grade 5 elementary students onwards (or 10 years old equivalent)
  By allowing the mandatory teaching of basic natural science knowledge, however to the interpretation of a nation's educational standards, to upper elementary students onwards so that their basic knowledge and understanding of the natural sciences, as future global citizens of this world, is widely accepted by the international community as verified facts.
• The requirement to take one natural science subject or module for high school students, to each of his or her liking under general education
  This simply means that all high school students, regardless of major (unless a science student), should be required to take up one natural science student or module (can be part thereof too, such as forensic sciences or traditional medicine, since they are derived from natural sciences) as part of their general education as a global citizen and to allow them to express their interest on specific areas of natural sciences.
• The promotion and recognition of science minors and achievements by universities/colleges upon taking specific natural science modules
  This means that should a university/college student decide to take up natural science modules, in accordance to his or her preference from a wide variety of modules in a list, the university/college will grant a minor or achievement on top of the student's major. This can be used credibly for job resumes, and it will definitely promote students to take up natural sciences despite their differing majors in order to incite their interests and to groom them on natural sciences.
  
  An example of this would be a Physics minor. If I were to take up 3 basic physics modules on thermodynamics, quantum physics and electromagnetism based on my interests (I know, these topics are really mind-boggling and I hate them ), I should be granted a physics minor on top of my major (for example, English).
• More natural science-related scholarships and exchanges to internationally recognized institutions
  While this means that education spending will have to increase (due to scholarships), this will be a huge stepping stone to allow students to travel in order to learn or take up training in internationally recognized schools or scientific institutions. Furthermore, nautral science-scholarships will also promote more students to take up natural sciences to reduce their own educational costs and to accommodate more students in such a field (instead of leaving them to drop out if they are financially unable to do so).

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: It's best to avoid micromanagement and specific ages/terms. For example the concept of "high school" doesn't exist in RL Finnish school system, not the way it does in, say, USA. And also, some natural sciences like biology are taught from first grade onwards. The "one natural science" thing sounds weird for basic science education, because unless you know the basics, you won't know what you might be interested in, and in any case you should learn the basics whether you're interested or not. Also, what's "module" in school terms?

Universities/colleges honestly speaking shouldn't be part of this proposal. Higher education is a whole 'nother kettle-o-fish and shouldn't be lumped together with basic education. (Also, colleges don't exist in Finnish system. On the other hand, we have gymnasiums, which the system you appear to be familiar with, probably doesn't.) And scholarships are meaningless in a nation where studying at university is free (again, RL Finland for example, at least for citizens).

So given that even in RL there is great variability in school systems, steering away from specifics is the best choice. Your suggestions would add lots of micromanagement without adding anything of international importance.

[Kenmoria]

“I will try to fix this. The issue is that I worry about imposing unnecessary restrictions that may make the proposal one-size-fits all. For example, requiring regular lessons in science would go against the philosophy of a non-timetabled school. Nevertheless, I can try and impose some restrictions.”

"I have some suggestions that you can consider if you are interested in this resolution:"

• Requiring natural science subjects to be taught as general knowledge to Grade 5 elementary students onwards (or 10 years old equivalent)
  By allowing the mandatory teaching of basic natural science knowledge, however to the interpretation of a nation's educational standards, to upper elementary students onwards so that their basic knowledge and understanding of the natural sciences, as future global citizens of this world, is widely accepted by the international community as verified facts.
• The requirement to take one natural science subject or module for high school students, to each of his or her liking under general education
  This simply means that all high school students, regardless of major (unless a science student), should be required to take up one natural science student or module (can be part thereof too, such as forensic sciences or traditional medicine, since they are derived from natural sciences) as part of their general education as a global citizen and to allow them to express their interest on specific areas of natural sciences.
• The promotion and recognition of science minors and achievements by universities/colleges upon taking specific natural science modules
  This means that should a university/college student decide to take up natural science modules, in accordance to his or her preference from a wide variety of modules in a list, the university/college will grant a minor or achievement on top of the student's major. This can be used credibly for job resumes, and it will definitely promote students to take up natural sciences despite their differing majors in order to incite their interests and to groom them on natural sciences.
  
  An example of this would be a Physics minor. If I were to take up 3 basic physics modules on thermodynamics, quantum physics and electromagnetism based on my interests (I know, these topics are really mind-boggling and I hate them ), I should be granted a physics minor on top of my major (for example, English).
• More natural science-related scholarships and exchanges to internationally recognized institutions
  While this means that education spending will have to increase (due to scholarships), this will be a huge stepping stone to allow students to travel in order to learn or take up training in internationally recognized schools or scientific institutions. Furthermore, nautral science-scholarships will also promote more students to take up natural sciences to reduce their own educational costs and to accommodate more students in such a field (instead of leaving them to drop out if they are financially unable to do so).

(OOC: As Ara has said, a lot of these only work for the most popular model of education in RL, not for other systems and almost certainly not for ones with an entirely different focus. I’ve implemented a clause encouraging schools to make science classes mandatory for early education, and have generally tweaked clauses around to make the effects stronger.)

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Minor edits have been made; consider this a bump.)

[Great Nortend]

OOC: Is there a definition of 'natural sciences'? Does it mean that a class which includes some aspect of the natural sciences, say entomology, is sufficient? Or does it mean that a certain number of topics must be covered? Only biology? What about geology, volcanology, chemistry or astronomy?

Furthermore, '[must] contain substantial educational content' is so vague as to be worthless. What is 'substantial'? Must the educational content relate to natural sciences? I am questioning whether a class can 'consist' of a time period either, from a grammatical point of view.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Is there a definition of 'natural sciences'? Does it mean that a class which includes some aspect of the natural sciences, say entomology, is sufficient? Or does it mean that a certain number of topics must be covered? Only biology? What about geology, volcanology, chemistry or astronomy?

Furthermore, '[must] contain substantial educational content' is so vague as to be worthless. What is 'substantial'? Must the educational content relate to natural sciences? I am questioning whether a class can 'consist' of a time period either, from a grammatical point of view.

(OOC: I will add a definition of ‘natural sciences’ to the proposal, and will try and rework the grammar. The vagueness of ‘substantial educational content’ is unintentional, but I can’t think of a more precise way to achieve the desired effect. I want to avoid a member nation claiming compliance by having lessons consisting of very little actual education, treating it as a glorified free period.

EDIT: A Definition has been added; any feedback?)

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: I would personally like to see a slightly more limited definition of school, as the current wording suggests you want preschools and kindergartens to have biology class which is, well, kind of weird (as in, I definitely think some exploration of some principles is in order, but developmentally we are talking about children who are doing building blocks of subjects, not really the subjects themselves). It might also be appropriate to tweak the definition a bit to allow for institutions of education that serve students who are unable to complete a normal curriculum.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: I would personally like to see a slightly more limited definition of school, as the current wording suggests you want preschools and kindergartens to have biology class which is, well, kind of weird (as in, I definitely think some exploration of some principles is in order, but developmentally we are talking about children who are doing building blocks of subjects, not really the subjects themselves). It might also be appropriate to tweak the definition a bit to allow for institutions of education that serve students who are unable to complete a normal curriculum.

(OOC: I’ve added in an exception for preschools, though it does rely slightly on a good-faith interpretation. Schools that are for students who are unable to complete a normal curriculum presumably wouldn’t specialise in just one subject, so are included under the current definition.)

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Another bump, I will probably be looking to submit this soon, assuming no major problems arise.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: Perhaps the school definition should include "for the purpose of providing basic education", and remove the "minors" from it, because if some adults end up having to re-do basic education (or do for the first time, if they for example come from a nation where they didn't receive basic education as children), they absolutely should not get a release waiver from science lessons just because they're adults.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Perhaps the school definition should include "for the purpose of providing basic education", and remove the "minors" from it, because if some adults end up having to re-do basic education (or do for the first time, if they for example come from a nation where they didn't receive basic education as children), they absolutely should not get a release waiver from science lessons just because they're adults.

(OOC: I couldn’t think of a way to do that without making the definition easy to loophole, so I’ve put that mandate under a new clause 3.)