[GA - FAILED] Pedagogical Freedom

Status
Not open for further replies.
Against. - Clause (ai) makes this a no go for me.
Proposal:
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
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine. Mandating member states to respect the rights of parents on their moral beliefs opens a can of worms with regards to what should or should not be taught in school. As highlighted by various people such as Dreadton and Cretox above, this may potentially result in beliefs and notions which may not be scientifically accurate to be forced into the lessons and this will definitely do more harm than good. Even from the viewpoint of someone who thinks that parents can, in some manner, influence how their children learn, I do not think that it is ever right to give them the freedom to literally dictate all of what their child should learn. Citing a different example, can you imagine the horror if parents dictate that their children be taught that "vaccinations are bad and cause autism", even if that has no scientific basis?
 
Against (non-WA here)
What people said above. I'm not fully against homeschooling but it has to meet way more strict regulations than this resolution suggests
 
RE "ECHR doesn't require homeschooling," nor does it forbid it. Many ECHR signatories do allow parents to homeschool their children; although negotiations surrounding the EU's ratification of the Convention are highly protracted, nor by any means does the EU forbid such either.

Fregerson:
Against. - Clause (ai) makes this a no go for me. [...]
Click to expand...
Sure, I support the vaccination of particularly vulnerable populations, but this doesn't mean that I can't call out poor arguments on my side when I see them. The World Assembly does not currently require that schools, parents, civil society, or any other group promote ONLY "scientifically accurate" claims in ALL cases, only in certain circumstances such as education about the natural sciences. It does not even require the prohibition of any particular form of speech, although it allows members to restrict some forms of speech and compels them to restrict public assemblies that "call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people" (refer to GA#27, 430, and 436).

GA#412 and GA#487 already have the effect of making vaccinations mandatory against contagious diseases that threaten public health, with no philosophical or religious exemptions; indeed, Article 4 of GA#412 allows members to impose "restrictions on school enrolment" upon those so unvaccinated. Yet this does not legally prevent schools from presenting or even promoting vaccine-sceptic viewpoints to their pupils - presumably as long as they do not forbid those pupils from being vaccinated as appropriate. It also does not forbid parents from teaching their children such viewpoints in the home, even if those children attend a regular school, and I see no reason why this should or would increase if homeschooling were to be permitted across the WA.
 
Last edited:
Tinhampton:
GA#412 and GA#487 already have the effect of making vaccinations mandatory against contagious diseases that threaten public health, with no philosophical or religious exemptions; indeed, Article 4 of GA#412 allows members to impose "restrictions on school enrolment" upon those so unvaccinated. Yet this does not legally prevent schools from presenting or even promoting vaccine-sceptic viewpoints to their pupils - presumably as long as they do not forbid those pupils from being vaccinated as appropriate. It also does not forbid parents from teaching their children such viewpoints in the home, even if those children attend a regular school, and I see no reason why this should or would increase if homeschooling were to be permitted across the WA.
Click to expand...
You said that the WA currently doesn't prevent schools from teaching the wrong stuff, and there is "nothing wrong" if the school wants to teach such vaccine-sceptic values. However, that is not my point here. My point here is not about whether schools can teach anything and everything, my point is about how parents can now legally dictate what is taught in schools. I don't want to know or care what parents teach their children at home, what they teach when purely homeschooling the kids. But surely dictate the lesson content in mainstream schools is a tad too much?
 
Last edited:
Fregerson:
You said that the WA currently doesn't prevent schools from teaching the wrong stuff, and there is "nothing wrong" if the school wants to teach such vaccine-sceptic values. However, that is not my point here. My point here is not about whether schools can teach anything and everything, my point is about how parents can now legally dictate what is taught in schools. I don't want to know or care what parents teach their children at home, what they teach when purely homeschooling the kids. But surely dictate the lesson content in mainstream schools is a tad too much?
Click to expand...
Good point - it affects other kids as well.
 
Fregerson:
...My point here is not about whether schools can teach anything and everything, my point is about how parents can now legally dictate what is taught in schools.
Click to expand...
This proposal does not grant anybody the right to unilaterally amend any school's curriculum. Article a's qualification - read in conjunction with Article a(ii), GA#80, GA#369, ad nauseam - is clear that homeschooled children must receive the same basic curriculum as children in a normal school.

When I said that Pedagogical Freedom "does not forbid parents from teaching their children such viewpoints in the home, even if those children attend a regular school," I was referring to moral teaching taking place outside the classroom, rather than how PSCHE/Citizenship ought to be taught in regular schools.
 
Tinhampton:
This proposal does not grant anybody the right to unilaterally amend any school's curriculum.
Click to expand...
Hmm, but the proposal writes...
a. 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
Click to expand...
If I do not want my child to learn about evolution theory because my moral belief is that God created mankind, the nation must respect my right to direct based on this clause. By extension, the school must not teach that to my school-going children. Indirectly, that would influence the school because they must make special notice to exclude parts of a curriculum to the student. Maybe not unilaterally direct what the school is teaching, but surely direct what my child learns from school?
 
Last edited:
Fregerson:
Against. - Clause (ai) makes this a no go for me.

Emphasis mine. Mandating member states to respect the rights of parents on their moral beliefs opens a can of worms with regards to what should or should not be taught in school. As highlighted by various people such as Dreadton and Cretox above, this may potentially result in beliefs and notions which may not be scientifically accurate to be forced into the lessons and this will definitely do more harm than good. Even from the viewpoint of someone who thinks that parents can, in some manner, influence how their children learn, I do not think that it is ever right to give them the freedom to literally dictate all of what their child should learn. Citing a different example, can you imagine the horror if parents dictate that their children be taught that "vaccinations are bad and cause autism", even if that has no scientific basis?
Click to expand...
i disagree i feel that in a system teaching discriminatory messages it is important to make sure parents can protect their children from such hateful ideas
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top