On the afternoon of April 1, 2017 UNICEF came to a close to a solution for the debate regarding the access to education in isolated communities in India. Three distinct blocs had been formed however, after thorough discussion the blocs merged. After merging Norway, UK, Croatia, France, India, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark and Poland the delegations discussed how to elaborate on the proposed solutions. The extensive and comprehensive solutions were as follows: preserving culture, improving infrastructure, campaigning for female education, training teachers in collaboration with NGO’s, language transition training, implementation of scholarship programs, reforming curriculum to include citizenship, sexual education and textiles, combating discrimination, and providing humanitarian aid in terms of incentivizing participation rates.
Despite the seamless transition of three blocs into one, an extensive discussion regarding the details of the clauses occurred. Since certain delegations began to waver in their stances the debate became prolonged and redundant.
During question period Vietnam asked, “How are students in primary school going to graduate to secondary school?”
The UK replied by stating, “ Since throughout debate it was not heavily discussed the delegations reverted to categorizing this problem under the solution of scholarship programs.” It was made clear that the scholarship program would provide economic and social benefits to those in need. The remaining delegations had a mixed reaction towards this proposal. Half of the committee found this to be inefficient and the remaining half found this to be an adequate solution to the rate of youth whom do not enter secondary school.
Once the question period had concluded the delegation of Croatia motioned to enter voting procedure on implementing the solutions. The resolution paper passed unanimously.
However, throughout the process of debate, question period and voting the dissatisfaction of many countries was very clear. It seemed as though for the duration of unmoderated caucus and question period, many eyebrows were raised due to the lack of communal effort in implementing solutions. Although countries such as Norway, UK, Croatia and France were ecstatic with the end result of the session, others such as India whom the topic directly pertained to was not impressed. In an exclusive interview with India the delegation’s concerns were strongly expressed by explaining how the solutions seemed “far fetched” and “years away” from actually implementing feasible change.
Despite the seamless transition of three blocs into one, an extensive discussion regarding the details of the clauses occurred. Since certain delegations began to waver in their stances the debate became prolonged and redundant.
During question period Vietnam asked, “How are students in primary school going to graduate to secondary school?”
The UK replied by stating, “ Since throughout debate it was not heavily discussed the delegations reverted to categorizing this problem under the solution of scholarship programs.” It was made clear that the scholarship program would provide economic and social benefits to those in need. The remaining delegations had a mixed reaction towards this proposal. Half of the committee found this to be inefficient and the remaining half found this to be an adequate solution to the rate of youth whom do not enter secondary school.
Once the question period had concluded the delegation of Croatia motioned to enter voting procedure on implementing the solutions. The resolution paper passed unanimously.
However, throughout the process of debate, question period and voting the dissatisfaction of many countries was very clear. It seemed as though for the duration of unmoderated caucus and question period, many eyebrows were raised due to the lack of communal effort in implementing solutions. Although countries such as Norway, UK, Croatia and France were ecstatic with the end result of the session, others such as India whom the topic directly pertained to was not impressed. In an exclusive interview with India the delegation’s concerns were strongly expressed by explaining how the solutions seemed “far fetched” and “years away” from actually implementing feasible change.