[PASSED]Repeal "The Early Learning Act"

[The Black Hat Guy]

Repeal “The Early Learning Act”
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #230 | Proposed by: The Black Hat Guy

The General Assembly,

Sympathizing with the desire to promote education in all nations;

Realizing that “demand among parents and guardians for early learning facilities” as specified in Clause 1 of the target resolution, can be unreasonable, and the resolution provides no redress to ensure that the demand among parents and guardians that is fulfilled is reasonable and beneficial, thus opening avenues for abuse such as:

• The use of early learning as a free long term care center,
• The demand for excessive numbers of teachers, establishments, or other resources that the government cannot reasonably provide,
• The demand to teach in sparsely populated areas or disaster zones in which it would be excessively onerous to provide access to early learning
• The teaching of children that are too young to benefit from early learning;

Further Realizing that the inability of a nation to meet every demand without subsequent deterioration of other priorities makes the target resolution improperly burdensome;

Understanding that conventional education is also important, and this resolution may force member nations to reduce necessary funds from conventional education in order to meet the demands for early learning;

Concerned that many of the guidelines established by the resolution are unnecessarily strict and lead to unintended consequences, notably:

• Teaching styles differ by nation, by culture, and over time, and thus focusing on "five key areas" prohibit nations from specializing their programs to their individual needs,
• The teaching of children with special needs, who may learn differently and need different guidance that is not recognized by the resolution and is restricted by the aforementioned "five key areas", which must be adhered to even when detrimental,
• The requirement that early learning be held in "settings outside the home or family", which precludes the possibility of family members aiding in early learning;

Regretting that this resolution reduces standards of education in member nations;

Believing that individual nations can create and maintain their own early learning facilities to a much better standard if this resolution is repealed;

Hereby repeals GA #230, “The Early Learning Act”.

Co-authored by [nation=short]The Dourian Embassy[/nation]

The target resolution, while well intended, has many flaws highlighted in this repeal that make the resolution overall detrimental to the education of many nations. While this is not my main reason for repeal, I added a small NatSov bit at the end to appease that faction, while attempting to word it in such a way that it does not imply that a different act could not do better (though I have no personal plans to pass one).

I'm aware that this has been attempted before, but I think that it's time to give it another go. The previous repeal had a few clauses that were simply based on false assumptions, and I think this one provides a better argument for the repeal.

This is a first draft, and I hope to improve it as time goes on. Thoughts, comments, concerns, questions?

[Pacifist Chipmunks]

The General Assembly,

Sympathizing with the desire to promote education in all nations;

At first I thought "sympathizing" was the wrong word, but the more I think about it, the more it seems right to me.

Realizing that “demand among parents and guardians for early learning facilities” as specified in Clause 1 of the target resolution, can often be unreasonable, and the resolution provides no redress to ensure that the demand among parents and guardians that is fulfilled is reasonable;

I would not state that it is "often" unreasonable, but I would point out that in some realistic circumstances it can be unreasonable. I think you should expand on why it is unreasonable and what that means (perhaps because it would break the national budget, perhaps because the demand is so large that it would constitute discrimination against those without children or with fewer children, or perhaps because it might increase over time if constantly satisfied and that this is likely to coincide with decreased effort on parents' part in terms of in-home education). I think this issue is one of the fatal flaws of the original resolution, so I would suggest exploiting it (maybe separate it into two clauses). You don't have to prove that it is widespread abuse, you just need to point out that there is an avenue for abuse that cannot be guarded against as a result of this resolution.

Understanding that conventional education is far more effective than early learning, and this resolution may force member nations to reduce funds from conventional education in order to meet the demands for early learning;

Noting that there is no consensus as to the effectiveness of early learning as a whole;

I don't really like the first of these clauses. Now you are making two cases and only those who agree with both will vote FOR. 1) You are arguing that the original resolution should be repealed, and 2) that conventional education is better than early learning. There may be some voters who agree with the first, but not the second. This clause dissuades those voters from voting FOR the repeal. I think you should expand the focus on the uncertainty about early education, though. Specifically, I would add a clause that acknowledges that even if early learning education is effective, there may be severe, reasonable disagreement about the optimal curriculum and methods for it. The original resolution was very specific about how to institute early learning programs. I would use that more to your advantage. Education theory seems to change every few years, so I would include something about how codifying today's early learning fads is a bad idea (using better language than that, but that's the idea).

Believing that this resolution will unintentionally reduce standards of education in member nations;

I'm not sure you need "unintentionally". Let me think about that some more. I don't think you need "will". It's been passed, the effects are already being felt. It has already lowered education quality (you just need to make a solid-enough case for that in the preceding clauses).

Further Believing that individual nations can create and maintain their own early learning facilities to a much better standard if this resolution is repealed;

Woohoo!

Overall I like it. I'm interested to hear others' thoughts, though.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"At the moment, I'm sort of leaning against this, on the basis that The Early Learning Act is fairly sovereignty-friendly, and probably allows enough discretion - in the 'as seen fit' qualifier - to allow for reasonable flexibility.

"As such, if you are going to push a repeal, I think you need to concentrate more on the idea of active harm. Rather than making an anti-early learning statement - which some will agree with, but not see as a reason for a repeal, and some will not agree with, thus lessening the number people willing to support a repeal to a minority - I would be inclined to concentrate on, first, this idea of 'demand' from parents, and how realistic that would be in, for example, sparsely populated rural areas or conflict/disaster recovery zones, and, (b), that the fairly strict educational criteria required may not be suitable for particular national cultural dispositions.

"I hope that's not me being unduly negative. But the WA has been doing a lot of repealing lately, and I'd prefer it concentrate on resolutions that do active harm, rather than ones that, whatever their flaws, allow enough scope for 'creative compliance'. If you can convince us this lies in the former, not the latter, then we'll support this."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[The Black Hat Guy]

I would not state that it is "often" unreasonable, but I would point out that in some realistic circumstances it can be unreasonable. I think you should expand on why it is unreasonable and what that means (perhaps because it would break the national budget, perhaps because the demand is so large that it would constitute discrimination against those without children or with fewer children, or perhaps because it might increase over time if constantly satisfied and that this is likely to coincide with decreased effort on parents' part in terms of in-home education). I think this issue is one of the fatal flaws of the original resolution, so I would suggest exploiting it (maybe separate it into two clauses). You don't have to prove that it is widespread abuse, you just need to point out that there is an avenue for abuse that cannot be guarded against as a result of this resolution.

Some changes made. I deleted the word "often", inserted a bit about abuse, and added a clause about funding. Thank you for the input.

Understanding that conventional education is far more effective than early learning, and this resolution may force member nations to reduce funds from conventional education in order to meet the demands for early learning;

Noting that there is no consensus as to the effectiveness of early learning as a whole;

I don't really like the first of these clauses. Now you are making two cases and only those who agree with both will vote FOR. 1) You are arguing that the original resolution should be repealed, and 2) that conventional education is better than early learning. There may be some voters who agree with the first, but not the second. This clause dissuades those voters from voting FOR the repeal. I think you should expand the focus on the uncertainty about early education, though. Specifically, I would add a clause that acknowledges that even if early learning education is effective, there may be severe, reasonable disagreement about the optimal curriculum and methods for it. The original resolution was very specific about how to institute early learning programs. I would use that more to your advantage. Education theory seems to change every few years, so I would include something about how codifying today's early learning fads is a bad idea (using better language than that, but that's the idea).

I don't think that it's controversial that conventional education is more important that early learning. Some studies have shown that early learning helps, but if you had to pick between a good conventional learning program and a good early learning program, it would be a conventional one every time. That's not controversial, to my knowledge. Even if it was, by your logic I shouldn't include any rationale for the repeal, because then nations may disagree with a part and vote against the entire thing.

Still, I changed the wording a bit. From "effective" to "important", because I recognize that early learning has different goals than conventional education, and while conventional education is more important, early learning may or may not be more "effective" at its differing goals.

I will add a clause about the specificity of the early learning programs though - that's an excellent point that I overlooked.


Thank you for your input.

[Mosktopia]

I'd be in favor of a repeal. The Early Learning Act is either meaningless, or quite intrusive, depending on how you read the first "requires clause." I mean, if the means my nation chooses to fulfill demand for early learning is to get government completely out of the Early Learning business and let market forces take over, then the resolution requires very little from me.

Of course, I think the point of the repeal is "what if the demand for early learning is unreasonable." Say, parents demanding one-child, one-teacher, one-crayon box, sort of proportions. Then market forces probably could not meet that demand, and nations would be forced to (very heavily) subsidize early learning in order to meet that insane demand. I can see how that would be a problem.

I also find it strange that an early learning facility is defined by a set of services and then member nations are commanded to ensure that they continue to provide said services. That's a bit circular. I mean, as soon as a facility ceases to provide a certain service, they fall out of the act's definition of an "early learning facility," and member nations no longer have to regulate them.

To reiterate, I support a repeal. I'll chime in later with more constructive advice.

[The Black Hat Guy]

"As such, if you are going to push a repeal, I think you need to concentrate more on the idea of active harm.

The very first clause of this repeal is a clause about the abuse that this resolution is susceptible to from parents and guardians with unreasonable demands. No matter how creatively a nation wants to comply with this resolution, if they have parents demanding unreasonably early learning (e.g. laptops for every student, 1:1 student:teacher ratio, highly furnished buildings, pick up and drop off services - all things which are unreasonable, but are not unrealistic that parents and guardians would want), then they are forced to comply with those measures, thus actively straining their budget and causing great harm to the nation, either harming their own budget or wasting WA funds.

Combine that with the strict guidelines on education, and you've got plenty of active harm involved with this resolution.

Rather than making an anti-early learning statement - which some will agree with, but not see as a reason for a repeal, and some will not agree with, thus lessening the number people willing to support a repeal to a minority

My goal with this repeal is not to make an anti early learning statement - indeed, The Black Hat Guy will continue its early learning programs even if this resolution is repealed, but rather to point out specific flaws with this resolution that make it untenable as a WA mandate for early learning. Indeed, I attempted to phrase the resolution in such a way that it specifically did not pass any judgement whatsoever on the effectiveness of early learning, only mentioning its controversial nature without weighing in.

If you have advice on how to make this resolution sound more neutral, I'd be glad to hear it.

- I would be inclined to concentrate on, first, this idea of 'demand' from parents, and how realistic that would be in, for example, sparsely populated rural areas or conflict/disaster recovery zones, and, (b), that the fairly strict educational criteria required may not be suitable for particular national cultural dispositions.

I've added a clause about the strict education criteria. The idea of disaster recovery zones and rural areas seems to be a good one, I may add a clause on that once I decided where to put it and how to get the wording correct.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I just dislike the 'Understanding...' clause. Not that I'm saying I necessarily agree with it, but I'm always concerned about the WA passing judgement, even in preambles. A more neutral way could simply be to argue that conventional education is 'also important', and then say that this resolution 'may force...'.

"I also hate the mention of 'species' you've introduced, but I know there is now such pressure on authors to acknowledge such conceits, and this is purely a personal preference on my part. How about the word 'peoples' instead? That's vague enough that it could be interpreted as solely referring to humans by those (like myself) who'd prefer that, but it could equally be interpreted as referring to non-human people by those who like to acknowledge such."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Pacifist Chipmunks]

Some changes made. I deleted...

-snip-

I appreciate the thoughtful changes by the esteemed delegate. We apologize for not including our traditional "IMHO" disclaimers. As always, we are just hoping to be helpful. We are just a friendly bunch of rodents. Thanks for understanding. We will yield the floor to further discussions on the propriety of this repeal in the first place (given that, as has been pointed out, there is not a terrible amount of active harm done by the original resolution). Of these latter matters we are generally ignorant of.

-Bombous Hecklesprecht

OOC: I realize that I sounded kinda -bossy- in my post because I forgot to include my usual "this is just my advice, take it leave it, laugh at it, or use whichever parts you like". Regardless, thanks for recognizing the tone my post was in, and good luck!

[Finium]

Sympathizing with the desire to promote education in all nations;

Realizing that “demand among parents and guardians for early learning facilities” as specified in Clause 1 of the target resolution, can be unreasonable, and the resolution provides no redress to ensure that the demand among parents and guardians that is fulfilled is reasonable, thus opening avenues for abuse;

To me, these is a repetitive phrase, since unreasonable demands are inherently abusive. If you keep it in I understand, after all, it does emphasize one of the major points of reproach.

Further Realizing that the requirement to meet all demand, even when that demand is unreasonable, can strain even nations that can afford it, and that funds will have to be drawn from other places in which they can do more good;

This clause took the right spirit, but I feel falls short of the actual goal. A more correct version might run along the lines of "Further realizing that the inability of a nation to meet every demand without subsequent deterioration of other priorities makes the target resolution improperly burdensome", which is more general and still concise. Your goal with the clause is to point out the inability of a nation to maintain a single priority above all others without destroying itself, so I feel that this more directly addresses the issue.

Understanding that conventional education is also important, and this resolution may force member nations to reduce necessary funds from conventional education in order to meet the demands for early learning;

This seems out of place and redundant considering how the previous clause operates. However, if you do keep it, you should subordinate it to the previous clause with the words "specifically", "Thereby concerned" or some such derivation.

Noting that there is no consensus as to the effectiveness of early learning as a whole;

This is good; clear, concise and assertive.

Further Noting that standards for appropriate education differ by nation, by culture, and over time, and that the specific guidelines set by the target resolution, notably the "five key areas", are not universal and are better managed by individual nations;

I feel as though this clause ought to switch places with the previous, since this is the more general and the previous is more specific.

Believing that this resolution reduces standards of education in member nations;

Good.

Further Believing that individual nations can create and maintain their own early learning facilities to a much better standard if this resolution is repealed;

Good.

EDIT: Overall, I feel that more diversity in your clause headings would be clearer.

[The Black Hat Guy]

This clause took the right spirit, but I feel falls short of the actual goal. A more correct version might run along the lines of "Further realizing that the inability of a nation to meet every demand without subsequent deterioration of other priorities makes the target resolution improperly burdensome", which is more general and still concise. Your goal with the clause is to point out the inability of a nation to maintain a single priority above all others without destroying itself, so I feel that this more directly addresses the issue.

I do like your wording better. Would you mind if I directly copied it? I don't want to do so without explicit permission to avoid plagiarism (though I'll still reword if you don't give permission).

This seems out of place and redundant considering how the previous clause operates. However, if you do keep it, you should subordinate it to the previous clause with the words "specifically", "Thereby concerned" or some such derivation.

Redundancies are common in virtually all repeals, and the funds that would be taken from conventional education (because most nations just have an "education" budget, so funds from conventional education would be spent to offset the costs from early learning) are a large part of the reason for this repeal. I think that that fact merits two clauses.

General convention (though not technical rule) dictates that you must have more than one subclause per set of subclauses, which is why I made it a separate clause altogether rather than merging the two.

[Finium]

Okay, I'm behind it then and yes, feel free to use any wording I suggest.

[Lailah]

(1) REQUIRES member nations to fulfill demand among parents and guardians for early learning facilities, by whatever means the individual member nation sees fit,

"Am I the only one who interprets this as meaning that member nations are required to provide enough early learning facilities to satisfy the demand provided by parents who send their children to them. I am unsure why this is being interpreted as meeting the specific demands of parents in regards to the quality and services available, which seems to be the source of your entire argument."

-Ambassador Roland Azazel

[The Black Hat Guy]

(1) REQUIRES member nations to fulfill demand among parents and guardians for early learning facilities, by whatever means the individual member nation sees fit,

"Am I the only one who interprets this as meaning that member nations are required to provide enough early learning facilities to satisfy the demand provided by parents who send their children to them. I am unsure why this is being interpreted as meeting the specific demands of parents in regards to the quality and services available, which seems to be the source of your entire argument."

-Ambassador Roland Azazel

To start, ambassador, if you see that as the source for my entire argument, then you clearly have not read the entire resolution.

Continuing on, a strict interpretation of the text simply says "demand". It does not specify any restrictions of that demand, nor does it seem to imply that that demand is solely limited to attending early learning. Regardless, however, meeting all demand for early learning even in your rather creative interpretation of the resolution can be an excessively onerous obligation, especially, as another ambassador pointed out (and I'm still pondering how to properly add - I should probably get on that now), in extremely rural, sparsely populated areas, or disaster zones.

[Moronist Decisions]

I don't like The Early Learning Act; here are some comments on this draft, however.

Regretting that this resolution reduces standards of education in member nations;

Believing that individual nations can create and maintain their own early learning facilities to a much better standard if this resolution is repealed;

I don't think these are well-argued, unfortunately. I can't unfortunately follow, based on a textual analysis of the original text and this proposal, how this would occur.

Also, I echo Ambassador Azazel's comments on the clause

(1) REQUIRES member nations to fulfill demand among parents and guardians for early learning facilities, by whatever means the individual member nation sees fit,

However, it still requires, by my reading, that all demand - including geographical considerations - need to be considered - which can be prohibitively expensive unless boarding schools are used. Also, your main point still stands as nations are required to regulate these facilities to meet those educational standards.

Beyond the text, I am also concerned that (a) The Early Learning Act focuses on a fairly narrow set of skills, and do not require nations to have e.g. health and sanitary standards for such institutions; and that (b) in order to fulfill demand for such facilities for unreasonable parents, nations would be forced to teach students music, art, reading and mathematics well before it is age appropriate.

I believe that this draft is a good start but there's still some way to go before it is submission-worthy. I shall monitor this discussion with interest.

Dr. Johannes Frick
Member of the Council of Morons
Representative of Moronist Decisions at the World Assembly

[The Black Hat Guy]

However, it still requires, by my reading, that all demand - including geographical considerations - need to be considered - which can be prohibitively expensive unless boarding schools are used. Also, your main point still stands as nations are required to regulate these facilities to meet those educational standards.

Note the clause I added about geographical considerations.

Also, I echo Ambassador Azazel's comments on the clause

(1) REQUIRES member nations to fulfill demand among parents and guardians for early learning facilities, by whatever means the individual member nation sees fit,

Beyond the text, I am also concerned that (a) The Early Learning Act focuses on a fairly narrow set of skills, and do not require nations to have e.g. health and sanitary standards for such institutions; and that (b) in order to fulfill demand for such facilities for unreasonable parents, nations would be forced to teach students music, art, reading and mathematics well before it is age appropriate.

Now, this section confuses me slightly. Do you or do you not believe that the quoted clause allows parents to make unreasonable demands for early learning facilities that include more than just demand for those facilities to exist? That was my impression of Ambassador Azazel's statement - that parents could only, under the requirements of the resolution, demand for such facilities to exist, but your statement about varying subject matter seems to imply otherwise.

I'm not averse to removing the clause about unreasonable demand other than demand in the first place, but I still believe that it holds merit. If it proves to controversial, I believe that the target resolution has enough issues for the repeal to stand without the aforementioned clause, but I'd like other ambassadors to weigh in, perhaps to convince me of my folly or to simply prove that this is too controversial to have a place in the repeal.

Regarding your point about health and sanitation standards, I think that in a resolution that is mostly about why this resolution is improperly burdensome to member nations, it would seem out of place to include a clause about restrictions that should exist, but do not. Again, it's not a bad point, and I'm willing to add it if the need arises, but it does seem oddly contrasting to the... theme, shall I say? Of the rest of the repeal.

[The Black Hat Guy]

I'm still looking for more input as to whether other ambassadors believe that this resolution allows parents and guardians to make unreasonable demands of member nations, more than simply demanding that early learning facilities exist.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Demand was a very bad word to use in the original. It doesn't stop at requiring the state to provide early learning facilities to the children of "guardians and parents" but instead requires states to fulfill demand for early learning facilities. Which in this case could include demands for early learning facilities halfway across the country that you'll never see. That's incredibly loose wording.

Beyond that, a serious issue is the requirement that early learning facilities include "Facilities in settings outside the home or family," which means that no members of the child's family may participate in these early learning efforts. Again, not what was intended certainly... but a serious problem since it's fairly explicit there.

Might I suggest you modify your realizing clause to include specific examples? Something like...

The General Assembly,

Sympathizing with the desire to promote education in all nations;

Realizing that “demand among parents and guardians for early learning facilities” as specified in Clause 1 of the target resolution, can be unreasonable;

Further realizing that the resolution provides no redress to ensure that the demands of "parents and guardians" are reasonable, thus requiring the fulfillment of demands for "early learning facilities":

* That are beyond the capabilities of the government to provide,
* For children who are not under the care of the requester,
* For children who are handicapped in such a way as to preclude the usefulness of the teaching methods outlined,
* For children who are too young to benefit from an education outside of the home,
* That involve abuse of the resolution in order to provide parents and guardians with free long term child care,

Bemoaning that the inability of a nation to meet such unreasonable demands without subsequent deterioration of other priorities makes the target resolution improperly burdensome;

Accepting that the requirement of facilities existing "in settings outside the home or family," bars the relatives of some children from employment in many early learning facilities as staff;

Concerned that providing access to early learning even in its most basic form can be excessively onerous to member nations in certain situations, such as sparsely populated areas or disaster zones;

Understanding that conventional education is also important, and this resolution may force member nations to reduce necessary funds from conventional education in order to meet the demands for early learning;

Cognizant that there is no consensus as to the effectiveness of early learning as a whole;

Noting that standards for appropriate education differ by nation, by culture, and over time, and that the specific guidelines set by the target resolution, notably the "five key areas", are not universal and are better managed by individual nations;

Regretting that this resolution reduces standards of education in member nations;

Believing that individual nations can create and maintain their own early learning facilities to a much better standard if this resolution is repealed;

Hereby repeals GA #230, “The Early Learning Act”.

I also think you could drop the "cognizant" clause and lose nothing from the resolution(while taking away an argument against your repeal). You don't have to use any of that I offered above, but it'd be my suggestion at least.

[The Black Hat Guy]

-snip-

Alright, I edited the resolution to include two separate lists for what I thought to be two different but important clauses. I didn't include all of your suggestions, as there are a few I have some issues with, but I believe that I included most, and I think you're right that their organization as a list makes the resolution more readable.

[Pacifist Chipmunks]

-snip-

Alright, I edited the resolution to include two separate lists for what I thought to be two different but important clauses. I didn't include all of your suggestions, as there are a few I have some issues with, but I believe that I included most, and I think you're right that their organization as a list makes the resolution more readable.

So a couple thoughts that are pretty minor...

1) It seems there are two spaces after the bulletted lists. We don't know if this is intentional, and we aren't sure if it's a bad idea. As of right now, it looks kind of easier to read with that extra white space.

2) The last clause has "Hereby" bolded. Is the convention to (a) bold the first word of the clauses, (b) bold the action verb of the clauses, or (c) to bold both if they are next to each other?

The results would look like the following:

(a) Hereby repeals GA #230, “The Early Learning Act”.

(b) Hereby repeals GA #230, “The Early Learning Act”.

(c) Hereby repeals GA #230, “The Early Learning Act”.

As stated, these are very minor questions. Really we are just hoping to get opinion on current WA conventions rather than suggest any changes to the text.

[The Black Hat Guy]

WA conventions varies wildly from, I've never really found a truly established norm that I can stick to. I did change the two spaces after a list, as that was more of an unintentional side effect of the way I did the BBCode.

As for the bolding, I've seen italics, I've seen capitals, I've seen no emphasis, and I've seen those anywhere - on the repeal, on the hereby (though I don't think I've ever seen it on both). I think my way looks better, so I'll stick to it, but I don't think there really is a formal convention here.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I think you should be emphasising your introductory/activating verbs, regardless of whether you emphasise 'hereby'. Personally, I'd suggest Hereby repeals.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Well now that it incorporates most of my ideas, I'm a big fan of this. Carry on!

[The Black Hat Guy]

Well now that it incorporates most of my ideas, I'm a big fan of this. Carry on!

I think that your ideas were solid and and definitely contributed greatly to the repeal, so I've added you as a co-author.

Unless there's any more revisions, I may submit this for a test campaign in about a week.

[Mosktopia]

I said I would "chime in later," but other projects got in the way. It looks like this has already been thoroughly vetted and the argument is succinct and strong. Best of luck!

[The Dark Star Republic]

The teaching of children that are too young to benefit from early learning,

"I wish this weren't given such prominence. I mean, it's called 'early learning' for a reason...

Handicapped children, which may learn differently, need different guidance that is not recognized by the resolution and is restricted by the aforementioned "five key areas", which must be adhered to even when detrimental,

"Hmm, I don't know, 'handicapped' is, at least in The Dark Star Republic, not a particularly appropriate term. How about 'children with special needs, such as learning or development disorders'?

The requirement that early learning be held in "settings outside the home or family", which precludes the possibility of family members aiding in early learning;

"Excellent argument. You could even spell it out and say that it seems to discriminate against people who prefer early learning environments be family- or community-oriented.

"I'm interested to see how this does - education repeals don't always fare well, but I think this has some strong arguments."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer