[GA - FAILED] Pedagogical Freedom

Status
Not open for further replies.
saintpeter

saintpeter

Chief Justice
ga.jpg

Pedagogical Freedom
Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Educational
Proposed by: Tinhampton | Onsite Topic​
Believing that it ought to promote the right of parents to direct their children's education (rather than hindering it, i.e. by requiring homeschoolers to seek teacher supervision or completely outlawing homeschooling), the General Assembly resolves, with immediate effect, that:
  1. Subject to prior and standing international law, member states and their political subdivisions ("members") must respect, in law and in practice:
    1. the right of parents, carers and guardians ("parents") of children to direct and guarantee, with regard to their sincerely-held moral beliefs, the education of their children, and
    2. the right of children to receive a full-time education which is adequate and appropriate to their age and ability.
  2. Members are strongly urged to respect the right of adults to receive an education as described in Article a(ii).
  3. This Compact must not be interpreted to necessarily require members to fully fund or partially subsidise schools; those judgments are reserved to the individual member states.
  4. This Compact must not be interpreted to forbid members from requiring parents to enrol their children into a school, provided that they have a reasonable belief that those parents have failed to guarantee that their children receive an education as described in Article a(ii).
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
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!
[TR][TD] For [/TD][TD] Against [/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]5[/TD][TD]20[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]0[/TD][/TR]


Pedagogical Freedom was defeated 13,879 votes to 1,685 (10.8% support).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A fairly benign proposal at first glance, "Pedagogical Freedom" aims to establish a balancing test with regards to the freedom of parents and legal guardians to interfere in the education of their children. However, this is where the problems begin. The proposal attempts to insert a supposed right of parents "to direct and guarantee, with regard to their sincerely-held moral beliefs, the education of their children" into its balancing test that all member nations must abide by. This is inherently problematic, firstly because it is not, and should not be, the role of parents to "direct and guarantee" their children's education in accordance with said parents' "moral beliefs," and secondly because nothing currently prevents parents from engaging with their children on educational topics outside of the classroom. This balancing test, which forms the crux of the proposal, is unnecessary at best and starkly contrary to the purpose of education at worst.

Furthermore, the proposal implicitly places the burden on member nations to demonstrate that families within their jurisdictions are not complying with the mandates of the proposal, thereby placing an unnecessary burden on the Independent Adjudicative Office by forcing it to make judgement as to whether individual children's education is compliant with the proposal's balancing test in a context where what is "adequate and appropriate" for one child is wholly inadequate or inappropriate for another. Due to this proposal's attempted inclusion of parents' morality into its primary (and only) mandate, and its efforts to address an issue that does not really exist as the proposal makes it out to, we see little reason to support it in its current form.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting Against the at-vote General Assembly proposal, "Pedagogical Freedom".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For. The first section establishes, implicitly, a good balancing test w/r/t pedagogical freedom.
 
Last edited:
I am so Against this, it should be burned with fire.

Laws like this are what allowed AntiVaxxers, Racist, and Extremism to flourish in the United States. It is also why most teenagers have no clue about safe sex practices or basic human biology. Moral beliefs should not be a justification for crippling a child's education. This bill should die an overwhelming death.
 
I see that some oppose, seemingly on false grounds. The proposal requires that all people be given an "adequate and appropriate" education. The IAO - not members - define this, preventing abuse. Thus the kind of things some fearmonger about will not actually be taught.
 
Last edited:
saintpeter:
I see that some oppose, seemingly on false grounds. The proposal requires that all people be given an "adequate and appropriate" education. The IAO - not members - define this, preventing abuse. Thus the kind of things some fearmonger about will not actually be taught.
Click to expand...

From a plain text reading of the resolution, it is carving an exemption for Moral Beliefs.
 
Dreadton:
From a plain text reading of the resolution, it is carving an exemption for Moral Beliefs.
Click to expand...
It establishes two rights (parents can direct education children + appropriate and adequate education for children). There is no sign one trumps the other. Hence, balancing.
 
saintpeter:
It establishes two rights (parents can direct education children + appropriate and adequate education for children). There is no sign one trumps the other. Hence, balancing.
Click to expand...

Which does not solve my concern just highlights it. For example, one of the most common areas where this will overlap is Evolution vs Creationism. Evolution is based on science, Creationism is based on the moral beliefs of a creator. Teaching both in school would arguably be appropriate and adequate under this law. In fact, its the norm in many education systems where the Abrahamic religions are dominant. I as a parent can dictate that my child should be taught that our God created the world 6,000 years ago and everything else is a work of evil, and it must be taught alongside things based on facts.
 
Dreadton:
Which does not solve my concern just highlights it. For example, one of the most common areas where this will overlap is Evolution vs Creationism. Evolution is based on science, Creationism is based on the moral beliefs of a creator. Teaching both in school would arguably be appropriate and adequate under this law. In fact, its the norm in many education systems where the Abrahamic religions are dominant. I as a parent can dictate that my child should be taught that our God created the world 6,000 years ago and everything else is a work of evil, and it must be taught alongside things based on facts.
Click to expand...
I don't think your examples are convincing, given IAO - a 'God committee' - is doing the balancing.
 
FOR
parents shouldnt have to go to a public school which tramples their morals
i see people saying 'homophobia' but what if the school system is in the wrong teaching like teaching discriminatory messages in that case this would let parents who object to the hateful/discriminatory messages could easily protect their children plus if the child wants to learn more or doesnt like it once they are 18 they can go out into the real world and challenge the old beliefs it also protects cultures that may be endangered which affect education which could be harmed by the education system not caring about cultures this way people could not experience the endangered cultures and with this law we could preserve old cultures from dying due to the school system not celebrating old/nearly forgotten cultures

so the result of my tangent is that while it could lead to people learning discriminatory messages but more commonly it would be used to do the opposite PLUS it would be a great way to protect cultures which are entrenched in education

so while it could do harm it would mainly do good
 
As the author, I am not voting; as somebody who is neither resident in TNP nor enlisted in its Army, I cannot vote anyway. I would, however, like to answer a few points made by those who have offered reasoning for their opposition:

Dreadton:
I am so Against this, it should be burned with fire.


Laws like this are what allowed AntiVaxxers, Racist, and Extremism to flourish in the United States. It is also why most teenagers have no clue about safe sex practices or basic human biology. Moral beliefs should not be a justification for crippling a child's education. This bill should die an overwhelming death.
Click to expand...
  1. The author of this proposal is a British citizen who has never visited the USA on any pretext and had no regard to American legislation when drafting this proposal. Where is the source for your assertion that laws allowing parents to homeschool their children - rather than (for instance) legal religious/philosophical exemptions to child vaccination and longstanding structural discrimination against minorities - is directly responsible for the rise in "AntiVaxxers, Racist [sic], and Extremism" in the USA?
  2. It is reasonable to assume that a homeschooled child who is being "educated on all subjects considered necessary for basic education" is enlisted in a general education service, and must therefore be in receipt of the necessary sex education. If that child is not, their parents are failing to provide them an education as described in Article a(ii) and the state is thus perfectly entitled to force that child to enroll into a school.
  3. See below.
Comfed:
Yeah sure, let’s let homophobic parents tell their children that homosexuality is a sin.
Against.
Click to expand...
Dreadton:
From a plain text reading of the resolution, it is carving an exemption for Moral Beliefs.
Click to expand...
The freedom to found educational establishments with due respect for democratic principles and the right of parents to ensure the education and teaching of their children in conformity with their religious, philosophical and pedagogical convictions shall be respected, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of such freedom and right.​
the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2016 version) (European Union), Article 14.3 - emphasis added​

No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.​

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.​
 
Hard against. God committees or not, this proposal introduces the idea that parents have the right "to direct and guarantee, with regard to their sincerely-held moral beliefs, the education of their children." This is something I emphatically cannot support in any form. The very purpose of an education system is to raise and train children in a way that their parents cannot or will not do. The supposed moral beliefs of parents have no place here. It is not the place of parents to "direct and guarantee" the education of their children; that's what the state is for.

Additionally, an "adequate and appropriate" education does not necessarily include the social experience and differing viewpoints inherent to a school setting. Which gets us into this bit:
saintpeter:
I see that some oppose, seemingly on false grounds. The proposal requires that all people be given an "adequate and appropriate" education. The IAO - not members - define this, preventing abuse. Thus the kind of things some fearmonger about will not actually be taught.
Click to expand...
So the IAO is apparently responsible for determining if a balancing test is met, in a context where what is "adequate and appropriate" for each particular child can and does vary greatly. I find the use of a balancing test to be quite problematic here for this reason, and am concerned of the implicit burden on the IAO.

Edit: The charged preamble does this no favors, either.
 
Last edited:
Cretox State:
Hard against. God committees or not, this proposal introduces the idea that parents have the right "to direct and guarantee, with regard to their sincerely-held moral beliefs, the education of their children." This is something I emphatically cannot support in any form. The very purpose of an education system is to raise and train children in a way that their parents cannot or will not do. The supposed moral beliefs of parents have no place here. It is not the place of parents to "direct and guarantee" the education of their children; that's what the state is for.

Additionally, an "adequate and appropriate" education does not necessarily include the social experience and differing viewpoints inherent to a school setting. Which gets us into this bit:

So the IAO is apparently responsible for determining if a balancing test is met, in a context where what is "adequate and appropriate" for each particular child can and does vary greatly. I find the use of a balancing test to be quite problematic here for this reason, and am concerned of the implicit burden on the IAO.

Edit: The charged preamble does this no favors, either.
Click to expand...
what if the state is teaching corrupt ideas then the only defense is this law
 
simone_republic:
Against. I am broadly against home schooling and I am against the preamble.
Click to expand...
homeschooling is one of the most important institutiions it helps chldren get a more personalised education
in fact in pigeonstan we dont have public schools
we think that they are a bad institution
you either go to private schools or are homeschooled
 
Pigeonstan:
what if the state is teaching corrupt ideas then the only defense is this law
Click to expand...
Pigeonstan:
homeschooling is one of the most important institutiions it helps chldren get a more personalised education
in fact in pigeonstan we dont have public schools
we think that they are a bad institution
you either go to private schools or are homeschooled
Click to expand...
Hate to break it to you, but these arguments of yours are all non-sequiturs. This proposal explicitly does not legalize private schools, I have no idea what that "culture" thing even means, and nothing currently prevents parents from interacting with their children about educational topics.
 
Cretox State:
Hate to break it to you, but these arguments of yours are all non-sequiturs. This proposal explicitly does not legalize private schools, I have no idea what that "culture" thing even means, and nothing currently prevents parents from interacting with their children about educational topics.
Click to expand...
it supplements learning with better learning is my argument
wait private schools are illegal
 
Pigeonstan:
[...] PLUS this act isn't saying GET RID OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS
it is saying protect homeschooling
Click to expand...
Pigeonstan is, incredibly, correct here.

simone_republic:
Against. I am broadly against home schooling and I am against the preamble.
Click to expand...
Cretox State:
[...] Edit: The charged preamble does this no favors, either.
Click to expand...
The preamble is preferably read in conjunction with Homeschooling Regulations by Araraukar and Ending School Segregation by Imperium Anglorum.
 
Tinhampton:
Pigeonstan is, incredibly, correct here.
Click to expand...
It's a non sequitur. Never said it's technically incorrect.
Tinhampton:
The preamble is preferably read in conjunction with Homeschooling Regulations by Araraukar and Ending School Segregation by Imperium Anglorum.
Click to expand...
We're not voting on these proposals. We're voting on yours.

Edit:
Pigeonstan:
ya but they dont get enough time
PLUS this act isn't saying GET RID OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS
it is saying protect homeschooling
Click to expand...
Who was saying this thing would "GET RID OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS"? Again, non sequitur.
 
Last edited:
Cretox State:
It's a non sequitur. Never said it's technically incorrect.

We're not voting on these proposals. We're voting on yours.

Edit:

Who was saying this thing would "GET RID OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS"? Again, non sequitur.
Click to expand...
the way they are acting is like as if it was getting rid of public schools
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top