[GA] Choice in Education [Complete]

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by:Christian Democrats
Onsite Topic

Proposal Text:

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that education -- like speech, association, religion, or marriage -- is a civil right; that civil rights necessarily imply choice in their exercise; and, therefore, that people should enjoy freedom of choice in education, just as they enjoy freedom of choice in speech, association, religion, or marriage,

Further recognizing that parents have a natural right and duty to direct the upbringing and provide for the welfare of their children, free of arbitrary interference, and that the role of the state in childrearing should be subsidiary to that of the family,

Understanding that the diversification of education is beneficial to society because it helps to combat the pernicious effects of intellectual and cultural homogenization and to promote the circulation of a diversity of perspectives in national life, thus enhancing opportunities for people to discover truth and achieve happiness,

Further understanding that non-state schooling can serve as a praiseworthy supplement or a necessary alternative to state schooling in nations where state schools are controlled by totalitarian interests that try to indoctrinate children with illiberal or immoral values, where state schools are overwhelmed, or where state schools are unable to meet the needs of certain minority communities,

Seeking to strengthen freedom of choice in the exercise of civil rights, to reduce coercive monopoly in the provision of necessary services, and to assist all children in developing their minds and actualizing their potentials,

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

• State school: a primary or secondary school that is owned or operated by the government;
  
• Non-state school: a primary or secondary school that is owned and operated by the private sector;
  
• Homeschooling: the condition of receiving primary or secondary education in one's home under the direction of one's parent or legal guardian, another adult relative, or a private tutor;

2. Affirms that parents and legal guardians have a right, at their own expense, to remove their children from state schools or to keep their children out of state schools and, instead, to have their children homeschooled or educated in non-state schools;

3. Further affirms that people have a right, at their own expense, to establish and maintain non-state schools;

4. Permits the government to impose reasonable regulations, such as curricular requirements, standardized testing requirements, and financial disclosure requirements, on non-state schooling and on homeschooling;

5. Forbids unreasonable regulations on non-state schooling and on homeschooling -- for example, regulations that impose curricular requirements on non-state or homeschooled students that unduly exceed or differ from the curricular requirements imposed on state-schooled peers; regulations that inhibit religious affiliation or prohibit religious instruction; regulations that require religious, moral, political, or economic indoctrination; and regulations that prohibit instruction in foreign or native languages; and

6. Allows the government, with due process of law, to mandate that a parent or legal guardian (re)enroll a child in a state school if the child is not making reasonable academic progress in a non-state school or homeschool, compared to the progress of state-schooled peers.

Click to expand...

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!

The resolution attempts to promote parental rights and religious freedoms to create a positive obligation for states to guarantee choice in a child education. The parents' will, however, is not the sole purpose of schooling. Society has an interest in promoting education, both academic and civic. Public education also has the advantage of providing an environment for children to acquire necessary social skills and engage with society as a whole.

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

for example:

for example,

Click to expand...

Horrendous words to be found in a WA resolution. Also, I don't think its operative terms are as strong as the author purports the bill to be (Strength: Significant)... I don't see that.

Otherwise, it looks great.

Abstain

Against.
I like the bill and its intentions but the bill shouldn't be significant as it doesnt really represent that strength. As Hundred Worlds said, its operative terms definitely are strong enough

EDIT: For
I will concede the strength issue.

Hundred Worlds:

Also, I don't think its operative terms are as strong as the author purports the bill to be (Strength: Significant)... I don't see that.

Otherwise, it looks great.

Against

Click to expand...

Brend0g:

Against.
I like the bill and its intentions but the bill shouldn't be significant as it doesnt really represent that strength.

Click to expand...

Really? You two like this proposal, but you're voting against it only because you disagree with its strength?

None of the members of the GA Secretariat, myself included, thinks that this proposal commits a strength violation. Significant makes more sense than Mild because primary and secondary education cover more than a decade of a person's life, education is a major policy area, and the language that this proposal uses is not mild (recommends, suggests, etc.). Do you really think that "mild" is a suitable adjective to describe a choice that affects where a child spends anywhere from 10-14 years (7-9 hours per day, 5 days per week, 9 months per year) of the first 18 years of his life?

I think it's confusing. It allows, prohibits and regulates with the limit of a same curriculum organized by the governmental authority. That is, you can not go to state school if parents find something like state school.

Maybe it would be easier to regulate the 'school voucher' and that each family chooses.

Against

For

Christian Democrats:

Hundred Worlds:

Also, I don't think its operative terms are as strong as the author purports the bill to be (Strength: Significant)... I don't see that.

Otherwise, it looks great.

Against

Click to expand...

Brend0g:

Against.
I like the bill and its intentions but the bill shouldn't be significant as it doesnt really represent that strength.

Click to expand...

Really? You two like this proposal, but you're voting against it only because you disagree with its strength?

None of the members of the GA Secretariat, myself included, thinks that this proposal commits a strength violation. Significant makes more sense than Mild because primary and secondary education cover more than a decade of a person's life, education is a major policy area, and the language that this proposal uses is not mild (recommends, suggests, etc.). Do you really think that "mild" is a suitable adjective to describe a choice that affects where a child spends anywhere from 10-14 years (7-9 hours per day, 5 days per week, 9 months per year) of the first 18 years of his life?

Click to expand...

I forgot that I might effect the delegate's vote on this bill. I change my vote to abstain.

To answer your question, yes, I don't think this bill is well edited. I don't like the "for example" part, which is primarily why I'm voting against it!

Against.

artiza:

I think it's confusing. It allows, prohibits and regulates with the limit of a same curriculum organized by the governmental authority. That is, you can not go to state school if parents find something like state school.

Click to expand...

Would you mind clarifying your opinion? This proposal does not say "you can not go to state school." It simply seeks to protect the right of families to opt out of state schooling and choose well-regulated private schooling instead.

There ought not to be any confusion. The first section defines terms, the second section protects the right to choose private education, the third section protects the right to establish private schools, the fourth section protects the power of the state to regulate private education, the fifth section prohibits unreasonable regulations, and the sixth section allows the state to remove children from private education if they are failing.

artiza:

Maybe it would be easier to regulate the 'school voucher' and that each family chooses.

Against

Click to expand...

First, a school voucher proposal would trench upon national sovereignty more heavily than this proposal. In fact, I believe the World Assembly would reject a school voucher proposal. Second, this proposal would not block a school voucher proposal in the future. This proposal does say "that each family chooses," but they do so at their own expense, unless the individual member state decides to provide school vouchers on its own.

Hundred Worlds:

Christian Democrats:

Hundred Worlds:

Also, I don't think its operative terms are as strong as the author purports the bill to be (Strength: Significant)... I don't see that.

Otherwise, it looks great.

Against

Click to expand...

Brend0g:

Against.
I like the bill and its intentions but the bill shouldn't be significant as it doesnt really represent that strength.

Click to expand...

Really? You two like this proposal, but you're voting against it only because you disagree with its strength?

None of the members of the GA Secretariat, myself included, thinks that this proposal commits a strength violation. Significant makes more sense than Mild because primary and secondary education cover more than a decade of a person's life, education is a major policy area, and the language that this proposal uses is not mild (recommends, suggests, etc.). Do you really think that "mild" is a suitable adjective to describe a choice that affects where a child spends anywhere from 10-14 years (7-9 hours per day, 5 days per week, 9 months per year) of the first 18 years of his life?

Click to expand...

I forgot that I might effect the delegate's vote on this bill. I change my vote to abstain.

To answer your question, yes, I don't think this bill is well edited. I don't like the "for example" part, which is primarily why I'm voting against it!

Click to expand...

First, I don't want to sound snobbish, but it appears that you started playing NationStates only a month and a half ago. Among GA regulars, it would be considered highly eccentric to vote against a "great" proposal or to abstain on a "great" proposal "primarily" because you "don't like" the words "for example." GA authors spend a lot of time drafting their proposals and a lot of time campaigning for them, so GA regulars do not ordinarily oppose or abstain on legislation because of very minor points (e.g., how something is worded). It took me about five hours just to get this proposal to quorum.

Second, it is not unusual for GA authors to use the words "for example." At present, at least eight resolutions use the words "for example." If you included the Latin "for example" -- exempli gratia (e.g.) -- the number would be significantly higher.

Third, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." You should not expect perfection from GA proposals and vote against them or abstain if perfection is not achieved. Submitting proposals to the GA and getting them to the floor is not an easy task. If a proposal fails, it might never be submitted again; or, if it is resubmitted, it might be months or even years later. To give a personal example, I tried, in 2012, to repeal the Convention on Execution -- a resolution that gave member states the "right" to execute people for any crime whatsoever. My repeal effort failed. In 2016, I tried again and succeeded (54% support). Eight days afterwards, another GA regular got a resolution passed (77% support) to limit the death penalty to "the gravest and most serious of offenses." If Choice in Education fails this week, you might have to wait a few years until a similar proposal comes up for a vote.

Given these factors, I hope you will reconsider your position.

Lord Ravenclaw:

Against.

Click to expand...

May I ask why you oppose this proposal?

I'm really bad at the World Assembly, but here goes.

Clause 6 doesn't account for the fact that someone being homeschooled may just have a learning disability, and the homeschooling may actually be more effective than state schooling.

Clause 6 has another problem. Let's say that a State school has Algebra, while a Non-State school doesn't (unrealistic, but an example.) What would stop the government from forcing all kids from that Non-State school to go to a public school, citing a lack of academic progress in Algebra? This can apply to any subject.

Also, about the following:

"Further recognizing that parents have a natural right and duty to direct the upbringing... of their children."

They can't do this, if they have to follow the exact curriculum of a State School, or be unable to homeschool their child at all due to the technicality of Clause 6.

Currently Against.

Mystery Player:

Clause 6 doesn't account for the fact that someone being homeschooled may just have a learning disability, and the homeschooling may actually be more effective than state schooling.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your interpretation. I don't think it would be "reasonable" to treat a disabled child that way, the "due process" caveat should incorporate GA legislation protecting disabled youth, and I don't think that it can fairly be said that an average child and a disabled child are "peers."

Mystery Player:

Clause 6 has another problem. Let's say that a State school has Algebra, while a Non-State school doesn't (unrealistic, but an example.) What would stop the government from forcing all kids from that Non-State school to go to a public school, citing a lack of academic progress in Algebra? This can apply to any subject.

Click to expand...

The power of the state to place kids back in public schools is a necessary component of the power to regulate private schools and particularly their curricula. If a private school is not teaching algebra but the state requires algebra, the private school is violating the law.

Mystery Player:

Also, about the following:

"Further recognizing that parents have a natural right and duty to direct the upbringing... of their children."

They can't do this, if they have to follow the exact curriculum of a State School, or be unable to homeschool their child at all due to the technicality of Clause 6.

Click to expand...

Note that the preamble uses the qualifier "free of arbitrary interference." Requiring children to learn basic math isn't arbitrary. Resolution 80 mandates it.

Against! None of the World Assembly's business!

plembobria:

Against! None of the World Assembly's business!

Click to expand...

Do you deny that education is a human right or that the WA should protect human rights?

I disagree with your interpretation. I don't think it would be "reasonable" to treat a disabled child that way, the "due process" caveat should incorporate GA legislation protecting disabled youth, and I don't think that it can fairly be said that an average child and a disabled child are "peers."

Click to expand...

Peers: a person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person.
At least some of them are the same age, so they are peers.

The power of the state to place kids back in public schools is a necessary component of the power to regulate private schools and particularly their curricula. If a private school is not teaching algebra but the state requires algebra, the private school is violating the law.

Click to expand...

But what if, for an example, a State school offers an elective on swimming. A private school with no water for a bunch of miles, would also be required to have that same elective?

Note that the preamble uses the qualifier "free of arbitrary interference." Requiring children to learn basic math isn't arbitrary. Resolution 80 mandates it.

Click to expand...

It was an example. Besides, if the parent has a right to direct the upbringing of their child, then why are they required to do it the same way somebody else does, or lose that right?

Oh my goodness, who let the author of the bill in here!?

Christian Democrats:

plembobria:

Against! None of the World Assembly's business!

Click to expand...

Do you deny that education is a human right or that the WA should protect human rights?

Click to expand...

That's just Plem being hardcore [Nat Sov]. And it's not that opposing the proposal means Plem doesn't believe education is a human right (it is), it's that Plem probably believes every nation has the right to decide the best educational system for its citizens, at least that's what I imagine the NatSov argument being. Personally, I favor parents knowing what is best for their children over the government, and I accept the pros and cons of that. Parents could feel that more individualized attention is best and perhaps that brings out a child's full potential, and then you get some whackjobs that pepper in some alternative facts with the curriculum. Would I homeschool a child? Nah. Private school? Maybe if I hit the lottery and my school district doesn't improve its teaching performance. But, choice is important, and I don't really see the harm in this. So I'll throw in a rare minister's vote and say For. Curious what the rest of the ministry will come up with when we draft the IFV though.

Hundred Worlds:

Oh my goodness, who let the author of the bill in here!?

Click to expand...

He has the right to defend his proposal.

Mystery Player:

But what if, for an example, a State school offers an elective on swimming. A private school with no water for a bunch of miles, would also be required to have that same elective?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It's up to the state-mandated curriculum.

Considering the arguments of others, I vote AGAINST.

Against

Sil Dorsett:

Not necessarily. It's up to the state-mandated curriculum.

Click to expand...

So people should be forced to learn skills that serve no use to them just because the State mandates it?

Personally, I favor parents knowing what is best for their children over the government, and I accept the pros and cons of that. Parents could feel that more individualized attention is best and perhaps that brings out a child's full potential, and then you get some whackjobs that pepper in some alternative facts with the curriculum. Would I homeschool a child? Nah. Private school? Maybe if I hit the lottery and my school district doesn't improve its teaching performance. But, choice is important, and I don't really see the harm in this. So I'll throw in a rare minister's vote and say For. Curious what the rest of the ministry will come up with when we draft the IFV though.

Click to expand...

If some whackjob wanted to throw in some alternate facts, they could do it anyway, regardless of where the child goes to school.This resolution also limits choice, as Non-State schools are forced to listen to the curriculum that the school gives., regardless of whether they believe it is useful or not. Obviously, some classes are obviously needed, but take the swimming example. If there is no water for somebody to swim in, should they still be forced to learn to swim?

Mystery Player:

So people should be forced to learn skills that serve no use to them just because the State mandates it?

Click to expand...

Look at it in the other direction. Your example said "... a State school offers an elective on swimming. A private school with no water for a bunch of miles, would also be required to have that same elective?"

The answer can be no. Just because the state school offers the class doesn't mean it's required to take. The state curriculum could be the absolute minimum skills a child needs and everything else is up to the school (private or not) to offer.

If a mandatory curriculum included benchmarks for Math, Reading/Writing, Sciences, History and Civics, then if the state school offered Swimming (optional), the non-state school doesn't have to provide it because it's not on the mandatory curriculum.

And also consider that without the resolution a state could set a mandatory curriculum anyways. Rewriting the resolution to forbid a mandatory curriculum and leave it up to each school independently could put the child at risk of not receiving an adequate education.

Sil Dorsett:

Mystery Player:

So people should be forced to learn skills that serve no use to them just because the State mandates it?

Click to expand...

Look at it in the other direction. Your example said "... a State school offers an elective on swimming. A private school with no water for a bunch of miles, would also be required to have that same elective?"

The answer can be no. Just because the state school offers the class doesn't mean it's required to take. The state curriculum could be the absolute minimum skills a child needs and everything else is up to the school (private or not) to offer.

If a mandatory curriculum included benchmarks for Math, Reading/Writing, Sciences, History and Civics, then if the state school offered Swimming (optional), the non-state school doesn't have to provide it because it's not on the mandatory curriculum.

And also consider that without the resolution a state could set a mandatory curriculum anyways. Rewriting the resolution to forbid a mandatory curriculum and leave it up to each school independently could put the child at risk of not receiving an adequate education.

Click to expand...

But then, if there is no swimming class, the child is not making reasonable academic process compared to their peers, since they are doing much worse than their State-school peers at swimming. According to Clause 6, they can be forced to enroll in a public school due to that.

Mystery Player:

I disagree with your interpretation. I don't think it would be "reasonable" to treat a disabled child that way, the "due process" caveat should incorporate GA legislation protecting disabled youth, and I don't think that it can fairly be said that an average child and a disabled child are "peers."

Click to expand...

Peers: a person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person.
At least some of them are the same age, so they are peers.

Click to expand...

I don't like that definition. If a family court of some kind were comparing a child to his "peers," I believe it would consider all relevant factors before making an order on the most reasonable course of action. In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a "peer" is defined as "one that is of equal standing with another."

What do you think about my other two points, which you quoted?

Mystery Player:

The power of the state to place kids back in public schools is a necessary component of the power to regulate private schools and particularly their curricula. If a private school is not teaching algebra but the state requires algebra, the private school is violating the law.

Click to expand...

But what if, for an example, a State school offers an elective on swimming. A private school with no water for a bunch of miles, would also be required to have that same elective?

Click to expand...

No. As you said, it's an elective.

Mystery Player:

Note that the preamble uses the qualifier "free of arbitrary interference." Requiring children to learn basic math isn't arbitrary. Resolution 80 mandates it.

Click to expand...

It was an example. Besides, if the parent has a right to direct the upbringing of their child, then why are they required to do it the same way somebody else does, or lose that right?

Click to expand...

As the parens patriae, the state has the inherent authority to coerce or punish parents who abuse or neglect their children. In most modern nations, it would rightly be considered neglectful to fail to teach basic mathematical or reading skills to a normal and healthy child. Parental rights are not absolute.

abc:

Considering the arguments of others, I vote AGAINST.

Click to expand...

Siwale:

Against

Click to expand...

Would you mind sharing with me the reasons for your votes?

Mystery Player:

Sil Dorsett:

Not necessarily. It's up to the state-mandated curriculum.

Click to expand...

So people should be forced to learn skills that serve no use to them just because the State mandates it?

Click to expand...

Right now, the state has that authority. This proposal would limit it by imposing a reasonableness requirement.

Mystery Player:

This resolution also limits choice, as Non-State schools are forced to listen to the curriculum that the school gives.

Click to expand...

It doesn't limit choice because nations are already free to do that right now.

Essentially, a GA author has only a few options:

• Let the state ban private schools or control everything that goes on in private schools (the NatSov position).
• Let private schools do whatever they want without regard to the law or anything else (the libertarian position).
• Have the World Assembly set the minimum standards or curricula for all schools (the IntFed position).
• Allow private schools to exist, but also allow nations the power to regulate them reasonably (centrism, this proposal).

If you want to be a libertarian in your nation, this proposal would not stand in your way.

Mystery Player:

But then, if there is no swimming class, the child is not making reasonable academic process compared to their peers, since they are doing much worse than their State-school peers at swimming. According to Clause 6, they can be forced to enroll in a public school due to that.

Click to expand...

Reasonable academic progress.

At present, nations may forcibly enroll children in public schools without due process of law or any standards whatsoever.

Surely, you can recognize that this proposal is better than the alternative -- free rein for national governments.

For what it's worth, I find the arguments made in favor of the resolution more compelling and lean in favor at the moment. However, the tally as it stands is 2-6-1, so the way it's going right now I'm going to be voting against. Do carry on your discussion though, it's been quite valuable so far.

My main issue is Clause 6. I don't agree on the re(enroll) part of this, because of a two reasons. Firstly, the child being renrolled into a state school may still unperform in academics. Secondly why a state school, how are state schools better than other schools, mainly non state ones?

Christian Democrats:

Christian Democrats:

plembobria:

Against! None of the World Assembly's business!

Click to expand...

Do you deny that education is a human right or that the WA should protect human rights?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

WA can (must) declare education as a human right, but not how regulate it. This proposal tries to regulate the capacity of election of each individual and is forced subsidiarily to what dictates each government. It's confused because it is a 360 degree change. So it does not seem necessary.

Cross-posted from Europeia's forums. On the topic, I have a few thoughts. First is whether or not the matter is really an international issue. I don't really believe it is. The preamble of the resolution is coached in the language of universal rights, but those rights aren't universal. This ties into the second thought, having to do with whether or not there are compelling societal reasons for some governments to require compulsory school attendance, like Germany does. I think there are, borrowing (admittedly heavily) from the European Court of Human Rights, with important sections in blue:

Source: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-76925

artiza:

WA can (must) declare education as a human right, but not how regulate it.

Click to expand...

This proposal doesn't regulate education; it permits member states to regulate it reasonably.

Imperium Anglorum:

Cross-posted from Europeia's forums. On the topic, I have a few thoughts. First is whether or not the matter is really an international issue. I don't really believe it is. The preamble of the resolution is coached in the language of universal rights, but those rights aren't universal.

Click to expand...

I disagree and so do most real-world international actors. For example:

Imperium Anglorum:

This ties into the second thought, having to do with whether or not there are compelling societal reasons for some governments to require compulsory school attendance, like Germany does. I think there are, borrowing (admittedly heavily) from the European Court of Human Rights, with important sections in blue:

In the present case, the Court notes that the German authorities and courts have carefully reasoned their decisions and mainly stressed the fact that not only the acquisition of knowledge but also integration into and first experiences of society are important goals in primary-school education. The German courts found that those objectives could not be met to the same extent by home education, even if it allowed children to acquire the same standard of knowledge as provided by primary-school education. The Court considers that this presumption is not erroneous and falls within the Contracting States’ margin of appreciation in setting up and interpreting rules for their education systems. The Federal Constitutional Court stressed the general interest of society in avoiding the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society. The Court regards this as being in accordance with its own case-law on the importance of pluralism for democracy (see, mutatis mutandis, Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, § 89, ECHR 2003-II).

Moreover, the German courts pointed to the fact that the applicant parents were free to educate their children after school and at weekends. Therefore, the parents’ right to education in conformity with their religious convictions is not restricted in a disproportionate manner. Compulsory primary-school attendance does not deprive the applicant parents of their right to “exercise with regard to their children natural parental functions as educators, or to guide their children on a path in line with the parents’ own religious or philosophical convictions” (see, mutatis mutandis, Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen, cited above, § 54, and Efstratiou v. Greece, 18 December 1996, § 32, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI).

Source: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-76925

Click to expand...

That decision pertains only to homeschooling. The German Basic Law states:

Christian Democrats:

That decision pertains only to homeschooling. The German Basic Law states . . .

Click to expand...

So? Your proposal creates a right for parents to homeschool.

Re: (I'm too lazy to go back for the quote) Other things about whether or not education is a right.
Okay. It's a right. Is choice in education a right? And does that choice extend to what school is attended, rather than simply, as the ECHR notes, the ability for a parent to educate? Is that right absolute? And does compulsory school attendance violate that right?

Stop purposefully confusing the matter of education being a right and choice in education being a right.

Imperium Anglorum:

Christian Democrats:

That decision pertains only to homeschooling. The German Basic Law states . . .

Click to expand...

So? Your proposal creates a right for parents to homeschool.

Click to expand...

Between myself and the court, there's no disagreement on the principle of educational choice. The disagreement is on the application of that principle.

Imperium Anglorum:

Re: (I'm too lazy to go back for the quote) Other things about whether or not education is a right.
Okay. It's a right. Is choice in education a right?

Click to expand...

Yes, rights imply choice. See my preamble:

• Speech is a right; therefore, you should be free to choose what you say.
• Association is a right; therefore, you should be free to choose with whom you associate.
• Religion is a right; therefore, you should be free to choose which religion you follow.
• Marriage is a right; therefore, you should be free to choose whom you marry.

Of course, it almost goes without saying that rights are not absolute; they are subject to necessary regulation. Defamation is not a right, joining a terrorist organization is not a right, performing human sacrifice is not a right, and child marriage (even if voluntary) is not a right.

Christian Democrats:

Between myself and the court, there's no disagreement on the principle of educational choice. The disagreement is on the application of that principle.

Click to expand...

I'm unclear on what exactly is the lack of disagreement you claim exists. Your proposal grants parents the right to homeschool. The ECHR dismissed Konrad's case petitioning for the right to homeschool. I think that's a clear disagreement.

Christian Democrats:

Yes, rights imply choice . . .

Click to expand...

Okay. Even if that is the case, that doesn't mean that possession of some right then means that one also have the right to choose all things pertaining to that right. The right to education, therefore, does not have to include a choice for homeschooling given a compelling societal interest, in the same way shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not an exercise of speech rights given a compelling societal interest. Why ought homeschooling be uniquely provided in the set of choices?

I am of the opinion that those voting against are making the right decision here.

Imperium Anglorum:

Why ought homeschooling be uniquely provided in the set of choices?

Click to expand...

Well-regulated homeschooling can provide children all of the same educational benefits as public schooling.

Christian Democrats:

Imperium Anglorum:

Why ought homeschooling be uniquely provided in the set of choices?

Click to expand...

Well-regulated homeschooling can provide children all of the same educational benefits as public schooling.

Click to expand...

"The court stressed that the decisive point was not whether home education was equally as effective as primary school education, but that compulsory school attendance required children from all backgrounds in society to gather together. . . . The applicant parents could not be permitted to keep their children away from school and the influences of other children. Schools represented society, and it was in the children's interests to become part of that society."

"The balance of interests between the applicants’ rights on the one hand and the State’s obligation to provide school education on the other did not require exemption from compulsory school attendance. The Federal Constitutional Court stressed that the State’s obligation to provide education did not only concern the acquisition of knowledge, but also the education of responsible citizens to participate in a democratic and pluralistic society. To hold that home education under the State’s supervision was not equally effective for pursuing these aims was at least not erroneous. The acquisition of social skills in dealing with other persons who had different views and in holding an opinion which differed from the views of the majority was only possible through regular contact with society. Everyday experience with other children based on regular school attendance was a more effective means of achieving that aim. The Federal Constitutional Court found that the interferences with the applicants’ fundamental rights were also proportionate given the general interest of society in avoiding the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions. Moreover, society also had an interest in the integration of minorities. Such integration required not only that minorities with separate religious or philosophical views should not be excluded, but also that they should not exclude themselves. Therefore, the exercise and practising of tolerance in primary schools was an important goal. Lastly, the Federal Constitutional Court considered that the interference was reasonable as the parents still had the possibility of educating their children themselves outside school hours, and the school system was obliged to be considerate towards dissenting religious beliefs."

"[T]he Court notes that the German authorities and courts have carefully reasoned their decisions and mainly stressed the fact that not only the acquisition of knowledge but also integration into and first experiences of society are important goals in primary-school education. The German courts found that those objectives could not be met to the same extent by home education, even if it allowed children to acquire the same standard of knowledge as provided by primary-school education."

"The Federal Constitutional Court stressed the general interest of society in avoiding the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society. The Court regards this as being in accordance with its own case-law on the importance of pluralism for democracy."

The state is in the best position to determine the school curriculum, being a matter of significant national policy requiring uniformity.

Further, the state is also in the best position to accredit teachers. There is no reason why any type of schooling should be provided by unaccredited teachers.

If both those things are provided, then homeschooling may be permissible, as a form of school choice.

However, the proposal frames homeschooling as a way to get around the state-set curriculum. As such, it ought to be voted down.

EDIT: To anticipate the counter-argument, Clause 4 is not an answer to my concerns. The purpose of the resolution is to allow parents to get around the school curriculum. Interpretive tools would thus place a high threshold on the requirement for reasonableness.

I also said that homeschooling 'may' be permissible, not 'must'. There are arguments relating to integration that mean that states proscribing it entirely is not something the WA should concern itself with.

Imperium Anglorum:

Christian Democrats:

Imperium Anglorum:

Why ought homeschooling be uniquely provided in the set of choices?

Click to expand...

Well-regulated homeschooling can provide children all of the same educational benefits as public schooling.

Click to expand...

"The court stressed that the decisive point was not whether home education was equally as effective as primary school education, but that compulsory school attendance required children from all backgrounds in society to gather together. . . . The applicant parents could not be permitted to keep their children away from school and the influences of other children. Schools represented society, and it was in the children's interests to become part of that society."

"The balance of interests between the applicants' rights on the one hand and the State's obligation to provide school education on the other did not require exemption from compulsory school attendance. The Federal Constitutional Court stressed that the State's obligation to provide education did not only concern the acquisition of knowledge, but also the education of responsible citizens to participate in a democratic and pluralistic society. To hold that home education under the State's supervision was not equally effective for pursuing these aims was at least not erroneous. The acquisition of social skills in dealing with other persons who had different views and in holding an opinion which differed from the views of the majority was only possible through regular contact with society. Everyday experience with other children based on regular school attendance was a more effective means of achieving that aim. The Federal Constitutional Court found that the interferences with the applicants' fundamental rights were also proportionate given the general interest of society in avoiding the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions. Moreover, society also had an interest in the integration of minorities. Such integration required not only that minorities with separate religious or philosophical views should not be excluded, but also that they should not exclude themselves. Therefore, the exercise and practising of tolerance in primary schools was an important goal. Lastly, the Federal Constitutional Court considered that the interference was reasonable as the parents still had the possibility of educating their children themselves outside school hours, and the school system was obliged to be considerate towards dissenting religious beliefs."

"[T]he Court notes that the German authorities and courts have carefully reasoned their decisions and mainly stressed the fact that not only the acquisition of knowledge but also integration into and first experiences of society are important goals in primary-school education. The German courts found that those objectives could not be met to the same extent by home education, even if it allowed children to acquire the same standard of knowledge as provided by primary-school education."

"The Federal Constitutional Court stressed the general interest of society in avoiding the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society. The Court regards this as being in accordance with its own case-law on the importance of pluralism for democracy."

Click to expand...

That some European judges spew statist claptrap from the bench is not convincing. First, socialization is a parental duty. It's not the duty of the state. Second, the views expressed above are illogical; they're internally contradictory. Pluralism, by definition, is "a form of society in which the members of minority groups maintain their independent cultural traditions" (OED). Integration means the exact opposite. Pluralism (the salad bowl) and integration (the melting pot) are, in other words, mutually exclusive. Either minorities have a right to "exclude themselves" (freedom of association), or the state has an interest in making sure that minorities "become part of th[e] society." God forbid that anyone have "separate philosophical convictions" (real pluralism).

Guy:

The state is in the best position to determine the school curriculum, being a matter of significant national policy requiring uniformity.

Further, the state is also in the best position to accredit teachers. There is no reason why any type of schooling should be provided by unaccredited teachers.

If both those things are provided, then homeschooling may be permissible, as a form of school choice.

However, the proposal frames homeschooling as a way to get around the state-set curriculum.

Click to expand...

In what way? Section 4 explicitly "[p]ermits the government to impose reasonable regulations, such as curricular requirements . . . on homeschooling."

Against

I do like this proposal and I think nations should implement these laws at a national level. However, the bill either reworks the entire education system in some countries or violates their national sovereignty. For example, Communist nations only have a state run education. It would be a complete violation of their national sovereignty to force them to completely rework their education system. As a result, I must be Against this resolution.

Christian Democrats:

That some European judges spew statist claptrap from the bench is not convincing. First, socialization is a parental duty. It's not the duty of the state. Second, the views expressed above are illogical; they're internally contradictory. Pluralism, by definition, is "a form of society in which the members of minority groups maintain their independent cultural traditions" (OED). Integration means the exact opposite. Pluralism (the salad bowl) and integration (the melting pot) are, in other words, mutually exclusive. Either minorities have a right to "exclude themselves" (freedom of association), or the state has an interest in making sure that minorities "become part of th[e] society." God forbid that anyone have "separate philosophical convictions" (real pluralism).

Click to expand...

Then we have a fundamental disagreement of the role of the state in society. It is the duty of the state to socialise its members. It is the duty of the state to ensure that portions of society are not so isolated from each other that they can start civil conflict. It is the duty of the state to integrate minorities — inaction or failure to do so would deal a crippling blow to the actual functioning of democracy and the ability for a society to reach consensus.

Naturally, my utilitarian view of the state and parental authority, will likely be derided in the next reply as 'fascist', 'statist', 'totalitarian', and all manner of adjectives which Orwell noted mean bad things in Politics and the English Language. It isn't the first time that's happened.

However that is, the state, in a democratic society (also a purely economic one too), is a reflection of society — that society has a duty to prevent its members from tearing it apart, it has a duty to socialise its members so that they can become upstanding members. And even if that isn't the case, as compulsory school attendance does not abrogate the ability of parents to teach their children, it does not violate parental 'rights' to indoctrinate their children.

Imperium Anglorum:

Then we have a fundamental disagreement of the role of the state in society. It is the duty of the state to socialise its members. It is the duty of the state to ensure that portions of society are not so isolated from each other that they can start civil conflict. It is the duty of the state to integrate minorities — inaction or failure to do so would deal a crippling blow to the actual functioning of democracy and the ability for a society to reach consensus.

Naturally, my utilitarian view of the state and parental authority, will likely be derided in the next reply as 'fascist', 'statist', 'totalitarian', and all manner of adjectives which Orwell noted mean bad things in Politics and the English Language. It isn't the first time that's happened.

However that is, the state, in a democratic society (also a purely economic one too), is a reflection of society — that society has a duty to prevent its members from tearing it apart, it has a duty to socialise its members so that they can become upstanding members. And even if that isn't the case, as compulsory school attendance does not abrogate the ability of parents to teach their children, it does not violate parental 'rights' to indoctrinate their children.

Click to expand...

There's no need for your aspersions or for your out-of-character, out-of-context paraphrases of in-character comments. Also, above, you shouldn't have quoted a poorly reasoned judicial opinion on "the importance of pluralism" if that's not what you actually believe. Own up to your beliefs.

We've had this debate before. You say that the state is the "reflection of society" and, therefore, has a "duty" to "integrate minorities." In your view, the state should aim to homogenize its citizens because social cohesion is the highest good. The set of values that the state chooses to implant doesn't really matter to you given your relativism. As long as the nation "reach[es] consensus," virtually any set of values will do.

I counter that the social cohesion thesis, to which you adhere, is false because some values are universal and are objectively better than others. Truth isn't simply about coherence; it's about correspondence to reality. Furthermore, the proper "role of the state in society" isn't that of a general on the battlefield or a manager on the factory floor. Properly conceived, the state is an auxiliary to society's more fundamental units, such as the family.

Yes, I do reject your "utilitarian view" of "parental authority" because it's wrong. Parenthood isn't good merely because it's useful (an instrumental good); parenthood is a basic good in society. The decisions of parents regarding their children's welfare deserve high respect, and it should be presumed that they're correct. Intervention by the state is justified only in the most extreme cases. One parental decision that is of the utmost importance -- and is a human right -- is the choice of the school that a child attends. The state may legitimately try to influence that choice by offering families a free option, but it is not the state's duty nor its right to compel a certain outcome against the parents' judgment of their child's best interests.