[GA - Failed] Repeal: “Promoting Natural Sciences In Schools”

[Deropia]

Repeal: "Promoting Natural Sciences In Schools"
Category: Repeal | GA #475
Proposed by: Kaschovia | Onsite Topic​

General Assembly Resolution #475 “Promoting Natural Sciences in Schools” (Category: Education and Creativity; Area of Effect: Educational) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Respectful for GAR #475, in the pursuit of a solution to insufficient promotion of scientific education in schools,

However conscious that, as the following are not defined and vague, opposing member nations may exploit and or misinterpret the terms 'non-trivial length of time' and 'relevant educational content', used in Clause 2, in a counterproductive way, and could put students at an educational disadvantage,

Worried that GAR #475 neglects a fundamental scientific practice in the employment of the peer-review process in setting standards for the eligibility of teachable, accepted scientific content, which may lower the quality of scientific education in many schools,

Troubled that the mandates of Clause 5, as it allows for problematic scenarios in the case of the prohibition of deliberate dissemination of 'false' information, can be evaded where hypotheses or ideas, unaccepted by the scientific community, can be taught mistakenly as a result of the vagueness in Clause 2, without deliberately disseminating 'false' information,

Concerned that Clause 7 urges member nations fund private schools' science classes in contradiction with their actual financial nature, and should instead have mandated, or even urged, that private schools appropriately fund science classes themselves in agreement with the general aim of the proposal,

Hopeful that, although GAR #475 has noble intentions and addresses an important issue, more effective legislation on this topic can be soon passed by this Assembly,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #475, "Promotion of Natural Sciences in Schools."

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

 

[Deropia]

Currently under consideration by the General Assembly is the repeal of GA#475 Promoting Natural Sciences in Schools. Focusing on the possibility for intentional misinterpretation of the text of the resolution due to vague language, the lack of a requirement for the scientific information taught to students to have been verified by through peer review and requiring member states to fund the science programmes of private schools. The author makes a convincing argument. Though the Ministry believes that legislation supporting the advancement of the sciences is necessary, we believe that it should be written in such a way that doesn't mandate public funds be used to fund private schools and encourages the use of a peer review system. The Ministry hopes that with the repeal of GA#475 the General Assembly will pass a sufficient replacement that corrects these problems.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the proposal.

 

[ACR of Deerfenland]

Against

 

[Kaschovia]

For

 

[Bobberino]

For

 

[Gorundu]

Against. We voted for the target resolution knowing it's not perfect, and decided the flaws weren't enough to bring it down and it's overall effective.

 

[Pallaith]

Against. We voted for the target resolution knowing it's not perfect, and decided the flaws weren't enough to bring it down and it's overall effective.

Well it’s a bit more complicated than that. This was a case where the forum vote ended up being in favor of it but the reasoned arguments against led to a a ministry recommendation against. I can’t speak for everyone who supported it, but this resolution is a fairly common type, where it’s okay but could use additional work to be better, and if a repeal comes along that can facilitate that effort, then I would be more inclined to support it.

As of right now I’m not sure quite where I stand on that, given how I felt about the target resolution, but I’m willing to give Kasch the benefit of the doubt here.

For

 

[Doez]

I'm against if we can set up a better curriculum. We should do the best for the children to be the most educated possible

 

[Kaschovia]

I'm against if we can set up a better curriculum. We should do the best for the children to be the most educated possible

If you want children to be better educated than they currently are, then I would suggest voting for this proposal, as it allows for more effective legislation, without the flaws I have detailed, to be passed.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

FOR

I don’t understand the logic of being against because we accepted the last one was flawed and passed it anyway??

 

[Kaschovia]

Against. We voted for the target resolution knowing it's not perfect, and decided the flaws weren't enough to bring it down and it's overall effective.

That's not the approach anyone should take voting something into international law.

 

[Doez]

If you want children to be better educated than they currently are, then I would suggest voting for this proposal, as it allows for more effective legislation, without the flaws I have detailed, to be passed.

Then I vote for

 

[DGES]

For

 

[Concrete Slab]

For

 

[Fontainberg]

Against

 

[Palgo]

For

 

[Wonderess]

For

 

[Citta Shakti]

For

 

[Panama Coalition]

For

 

[Gorundu]

snip

snip

snip

The target resolution isn't perfect, and none are, because wording is always up for debate, and varying opinions on good-faith compliance and create varying views on the effectiveness of a resolution.

The repeal picked on specific wording from parts of the target resolution, wording which I believe are not so problematic as it describes.

Ultimately, I'm not convinced your intended replacement, which I assume is this one, makes any significant improvements. Looking at your replacement proposal, we can also use the same lens and say, for example, it leaves too much discretion to countries to determine what "comprehensive" courses mean. Aside from that, it would also take away funding for schools in countries which may need extra aid, something I believe would be very beneficial.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Present.

I have expressed my opinions on this proposal elsewhere and I am grateful for the author's engagement with them.

On the whole, I am not against a repeal and I think there are meritorious arguments made in the proposed repeal. It is right, I think, to say that the term "non-trivial" does not go far enough in ensuring education is for a time that is actually sufficient. I also agree that clauses 2 and 5 of the original resolution do leave scope for incorrect information to be propagated and that the original resolution unfortunately does not take steps to mitigate that.

However, there are areas where I disagree. I do not think it right to focus on nations deliberately seeking to avoid compliance, such arguments are liable to defeat any number of resolutions if accepted and authors cannot, where they are laypersons operating in the constraints of a game, be expected to draft proposals so watertight as to defeat such deliberate bad faith. Further, I am concerned that, though the author has drafted a replacement, that replacement does not appear to have widespread support and that there is therefore a risk of the original resolution going unreplaced.

 

[Loh]

For

 

[Wilkshire]

For

 

[Fregerson]

For