[DEFEATED] Choice in Education

[Cemberia]

I for one, support this. The state shouldn't dictate where you can or can't learn. By allowing free choice, you open up a new market that is incentivized to educate the populace, as that is how it gains revenue AND expand the ideas that can be taught.

This isn't abolishing state schools, just saying that individuals have a right to choose an alternative.

The problem this delegation sees with this proposal is that by opening this up to the Private Sector you will allow money to be the forefront of every conversation about a childs education. It is not about money, it is about the needs of the youth and the proper education they should be given. Letting the state provide the best education with state-funded schools and a consistent curriculum is the best option for the bright minds of any nation.

This Country has seen the results of allowing the Private Sector and greed to rule the day, it will stand that no longer and we will fight for each sovereign nations right to fight back against the corruption of the Private Sector.

[Libertarian North America]

I for one, support this. The state shouldn't dictate where you can or can't learn. By allowing free choice, you open up a new market that is incentivized to educate the populace, as that is how it gains revenue AND expand the ideas that can be taught.

This isn't abolishing state schools, just saying that individuals have a right to choose an alternative.

The problem this delegation sees with this proposal is that by opening this up to the Private Sector you will allow money to be the forefront of every conversation about a childs education. It is not about money, it is about the needs of the youth and the proper education they should be given. Letting the state provide the best education with state-funded schools and a consistent curriculum is the best option for the bright minds of any nation.

This Country has seen the results of allowing the Private Sector and greed to rule the day, it will stand that no longer and we will fight for each sovereign nations right to fight back against the corruption of the Private Sector.

A state funded school still requires funding - that is, money - in order to provide that education. Money makes the world go round. What's more, what individual or body would choose or document the "best option?" Is it really the best option if one cannot choose an alternative?

[The United Providences of Perland]

I disagree with this pretty well. For one, religious or non-religious states that require by their laws that students be educated in their schools can be overpassed and allow behavior a nation is against or outrights bans, therefor just hurting the child in the long run. And in very few cases, the state does know best as this could also breed extremism in any direction. Finally, privatized schools could mess with many socialist nations like myself.

[Cemberia]

The problem this delegation sees with this proposal is that by opening this up to the Private Sector you will allow money to be the forefront of every conversation about a childs education. It is not about money, it is about the needs of the youth and the proper education they should be given. Letting the state provide the best education with state-funded schools and a consistent curriculum is the best option for the bright minds of any nation.

This Country has seen the results of allowing the Private Sector and greed to rule the day, it will stand that no longer and we will fight for each sovereign nations right to fight back against the corruption of the Private Sector.

A state funded school still requires funding - that is, money - in order to provide that education. Money makes the world go round. What's more, what individual or body would choose or document the "best option?" Is it really the best option if one cannot choose an alternative?

Money that is generated by the state and government run businesses. As well as through proper taxation of the individual. It matters very much who has the responsibility of providing for the people. Do we force the people to do this on their own? Or does the state that exists to SERVE the people do this for them? Our delegation finds that it is in the hands of the STATE and not the PEOPLE to provide these basic necessities and rights to its people. Money "does" make the world go round but in the wrong hands this can lead to many negatives that detract from the peoples quality of life.

The only responsibility people have is to feed themselves, pay their taxes, and live their lives as responsible productive members of a society.

[Christian Democrats]

I disagree with this pretty well. For one, religious or non-religious states that require by their laws that students be educated in their schools can be overpassed

That's a good thing!

A state funded school still requires funding - that is, money - in order to provide that education. Money makes the world go round. What's more, what individual or body would choose or document the "best option?" Is it really the best option if one cannot choose an alternative?

Money that is generated by the state and government run businesses. As well as through proper taxation of the individual. It matters very much who has the responsibility of providing for the people. Do we force the people to do this on their own? Or does the state that exists to SERVE the people do this for them? Our delegation finds that it is in the hands of the STATE and not the PEOPLE to provide these basic necessities and rights to its people. Money "does" make the world go round but in the wrong hands this can lead to many negatives that detract from the peoples quality of life.

The only responsibility people have is to feed themselves, pay their taxes, and live their lives as responsible productive members of a society.

I assume your nation bans private charity?

[Cemberia]

Money that is generated by the state and government run businesses. As well as through proper taxation of the individual. It matters very much who has the responsibility of providing for the people. Do we force the people to do this on their own? Or does the state that exists to SERVE the people do this for them? Our delegation finds that it is in the hands of the STATE and not the PEOPLE to provide these basic necessities and rights to its people. Money "does" make the world go round but in the wrong hands this can lead to many negatives that detract from the peoples quality of life.

The only responsibility people have is to feed themselves, pay their taxes, and live their lives as responsible productive members of a society.

I assume your nation bans private charity?

Negative, ghost-rider.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

TLDR: Families have the right to opt out of state schooling and choose private, or independent, education instead.

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

The government of Evil Dictators Happyland has decided that it is opposed to this on the basis that we do not have a private sector in education (the money-grubbing capitalists are useful in industry and banking, and absolutely nothing else) and giving parents the ability to opt out of government schooling would give them the ability to opt out of all schooling.
In addition, your definition of state school:

State school: a primary or secondary school that is owned or operated by the government;

does not take in to account the fact that our government owns and distributes all housing (real estate has been nationalized), and thus, combined with the fact that we have no private schools and your definition of "homeschool":

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;

renders the effect of this resolution that, in addition to giving parents the ability to opt out of education in general, no alternative to state schooling whatsoever.
Taking our education very seriously, and seeing no potential benefits to this system to counteract either the losses in education or both that and a significant restructuring of our economy (potentially costing us trillions of standard monetary units), we are voting against this resolution.
Judging from the current percentages (79.2% against, 20.8% for), the majority of 10,000 Islands shares our sentiment and wishes to preserve the quality of education of the world.

This has been Luca Tschida, First Minister of Education for Evil Dictators Happyland, signing off now.

[Uan aa Boa]

Voting has begun. This proposal asserts that education is a civil right and then insists that money should be allowed to buy a better standard of it. What a strange conception of rights.

Education is considered a Human Right under the Human Rights Charter of the UN

I'm not disputing for a moment that education is a right. I am questioning, however, the logic that says that because choice is involved in exercising some rights (right to freedom and speech and assembly, marriage and religion according to the draft) it follows that choice is in general a feature of exercising a right. How is choice relevant to the right not to be tortured, for example, or the right to a fair trial?

Even more than that I'm questioning why we should respond to basic rights by enacting the right of the rich to purchase that right in greater degree. Make no mistake, that's exactly what this proposal does. People can, at their own expense, set up schools attended, at their parents' expense, by the children of the rich, and if that expense is large enough then of course they'll be better schools than those available to ordinary people.

What next? Shall we enact the right of the rich to purchase a fairer trial? Obviously that tends to happen in practice, along with exercise of the right to participate in government, culture and community along with many others. But surely we should recognise that as a shortcoming and aspire to true equality of rights, not codify that inequality as if it were itself a right.

[Aclion]

Education is considered a Human Right under the Human Rights Charter of the UN

I'm not disputing for a moment that education is a right. I am questioning, however, the logic that says that because choice is involved in exercising some rights (right to freedom and speech and assembly, marriage and religion according to the draft) it follows that choice is in general a feature of exercising a right. How is choice relevant to the right not to be tortured, for example, or the right to a fair trial?

Even more than that I'm questioning why we should respond to basic rights by enacting the right of the rich to purchase that right in greater degree. Make no mistake, that's exactly what this proposal does. People can, at their own expense, set up schools attended, at their parents' expense, by the children of the rich, and if that expense is large enough then of course they'll be better schools than those available to ordinary people.

And do you believe that having only public education prevents the rich from purchasing better education? Because I can tell you that is not at all true, they simply purchase better education by living in affluent areas where the public schools are better.

[Yodle]

Education is considered a Human Right under the Human Rights Charter of the UN

I'm not disputing for a moment that education is a right. I am questioning, however, the logic that says that because choice is involved in exercising some rights (right to freedom and speech and assembly, marriage and religion according to the draft) it follows that choice is in general a feature of exercising a right. How is choice relevant to the right not to be tortured, for example, or the right to a fair trial?

Even more than that I'm questioning why we should respond to basic rights by enacting the right of the rich to purchase that right in greater degree. Make no mistake, that's exactly what this proposal does. People can, at their own expense, set up schools attended, at their parents' expense, by the children of the rich, and if that expense is large enough then of course they'll be better schools than those available to ordinary people.

What next? Shall we enact the right of the rich to purchase a fairer trial? Obviously that tends to happen in practice, along with exercise of the right to participate in government, culture and community along with many others. But surely we should recognise that as a shortcoming and aspire to true equality of rights, not codify that inequality as if it were itself a right.

I think you may be misunderstanding the different between equality of oppurtunity and equality of outcome. Rich people will always be able to buy the better of anything, whether it be being able to afford a better school for their children, or being able to afford the best lawyers to represent them in the court of law. This is the nature of living in a society that is consumerist.

Now, by establishing a right to choose your education and not saying "Your children have to go to state school, we're getting rid of private education," all you're doing is giving people a true right. Everyone should have the right to the oppurtunity to get an amazing education, that doesn't mean that everyone will have the merit or money to get that education. It's not fair, but you can only provide a basic standard for schools, you can't guarantee the best for everyone.

[Aclion]

You can only provide a basic standard for schools, you can't guarantee the best for everyone.

Hey, Speak for yourself!

[Christian Democrats]

Education is considered a Human Right under the Human Rights Charter of the UN

I'm not disputing for a moment that education is a right. I am questioning, however, the logic that says that because choice is involved in exercising some rights (right to freedom and speech and assembly, marriage and religion according to the draft) it follows that choice is in general a feature of exercising a right. How is choice relevant to the right not to be tortured, for example, or the right to a fair trial?

Is torture not the infliction of pain on someone without his consent (choice)? In the legal system, do people not have the choice to plead not guilty or guilty, the choice of a jury trial or a bench trial, the choice to testify or not, and the choice of counsel?

Even more than that I'm questioning why we should respond to basic rights by enacting the right of the rich to purchase that right in greater degree. Make no mistake, that's exactly what this proposal does. People can, at their own expense, set up schools attended, at their parents' expense, by the children of the rich, and if that expense is large enough then of course they'll be better schools than those available to ordinary people.

Your views are irrational, Ambassador. You would deny "better schools" to some children merely because not all children can have them. You would hold down some children from fully actualizing their potentials merely because not all children can fully actualize their potentials. It would, of course, be best for all children to be in the best schools and for all children to attain full actualization; but, surely, it is better for some children to be in the best schools and for some children to attain full actualization than for no children to be in the best schools and for no children to attain full actualization. Your position, expressed here, is to tear down some children out of envy.

[Uan aa Boa]

I think you may be misunderstanding the different between equality of oppurtunity and equality of outcome. Rich people will always be able to buy the better of anything, whether it be being able to afford a better school for their children, or being able to afford the best lawyers to represent them in the court of law. This is the nature of living in a society that is consumerist.

Now, by establishing a right to choose your education and not saying "Your children have to go to state school, we're getting rid of private education," all you're doing is giving people a true right. Everyone should have the right to the oppurtunity to get an amazing education, that doesn't mean that everyone will have the merit or money to get that education. It's not fair, but you can only provide a basic standard for schools, you can't guarantee the best for everyone.

I am genuinely taken aback to be hearing this from the founder of a region dedicated to the politics of Bernie Sanders.

First and foremost, Bernie believes that all children deserve the right to a quality education, not just those who live in wealthy areas:

“I believe guaranteeing resource equity is a core tenet of the federal government’s role in education policy, and if elected, I will work to reduce the resource disparities that currently exist between schools in wealthy and low-income areas.”

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-education/

[Uan aa Boa]

Your views are irrational, Ambassador. You would deny "better schools" to some children merely because not all children can have them. You would hold down some children from fully actualizing their potentials merely because not all children can fully actualize their potentials. It would, of course, be best for all children to be in the best schools and for all children to attain full actualization; but, surely, it is better for some children to be in the best schools and for some children to attain full actualization than for no children to be in the best schools and for no children to attain full actualization. Your position, expressed here, is to tear down some children out of envy.

Well, where to begin? Your own resolution "seeks to assist all children in developing their minds and actualizing their potentials," though admittedly it doesn't persist for long in that search as all the options it provides come with a price tag.

When we accept that only a wealthy elite will have access to the best schools we accept that they'll also have disproportionate access to the best universities and hence to the best places jobs and incomes, ensuring that their children inherit the advantages they had so that the cycle perpetuates itself. We accept the exclusion of all but the hereditary elite from society's top positions. We accept, in fact, "the pernicious effects of intellectual and cultural homogenization" and fail "to promote the circulation of a diversity of perspectives in national life."

Yet I would just have voted against without comment if you hadn't introduce this buy-your-way-to-the-top charter using the language of civil rights. You're openly advocating offering enhanced civil rights, in the full knowledge that this is what education is, to the rich. Yet the very concept of civil rights is dependent on their universality! When the rich cheat the legal system because they can afford the best lawyers society should see that as a rebuke because, in fact, all are not equal before the law. The idea that a law should be passed to expressly state that civil rights are for sale is absurd. Where there is not equality we should fight for it!

[Free Republics]

The FFR has decided to vote against this resolution as we believe that this resolution does not go far enough to protect educational choice. We would favor the resolution if provisions 4 and 6, which permit governments to arbitrarily deny choice in education, were removed from the resolution.

We have long had the Universal School Vouchers Act that provides real educational choice for parents and children in our nation, which is one of the third rails of our political system and we are not going to support a resolution that permits other governments to deprive parents and children of choice by regulating private schools, regulating homeschooling or permitting governments to force children to attend government schools.

[Christian Democrats]

Your views are irrational, Ambassador. You would deny "better schools" to some children merely because not all children can have them. You would hold down some children from fully actualizing their potentials merely because not all children can fully actualize their potentials. It would, of course, be best for all children to be in the best schools and for all children to attain full actualization; but, surely, it is better for some children to be in the best schools and for some children to attain full actualization than for no children to be in the best schools and for no children to attain full actualization. Your position, expressed here, is to tear down some children out of envy.

Well, where to begin? Your own resolution "seeks to assist all children in developing their minds and actualizing their potentials," though admittedly it doesn't persist for long in that search as all the options it provides come with a price tag.

In the pursuit of assisting all children, it's better to assist some children than to assist no children.

When we accept that only a wealthy elite will have access to the best schools we accept that they'll also have disproportionate access to the best universities and hence to the best places jobs and incomes, ensuring that their children inherit the advantages they had so that the cycle perpetuates itself. We accept the exclusion of all but the hereditary elite from society's top positions. We accept, in fact, "the pernicious effects of intellectual and cultural homogenization" and fail "to promote the circulation of a diversity of perspectives in national life."

Yet I would just have voted against without comment if you hadn't introduce this buy-your-way-to-the-top charter using the language of civil rights. You're openly advocating offering enhanced civil rights, in the full knowledge that this is what education is, to the rich. Yet the very concept of civil rights is dependent on their universality! When the rich cheat the legal system because they can afford the best lawyers society should see that as a rebuke because, in fact, all are not equal before the law. The idea that a law should be passed to expressly state that civil rights are for sale is absurd. Where there is not equality we should fight for it!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

we are not going to support a resolution that permits other governments to deprive parents and children of choice by regulating private schools, regulating homeschooling or permitting governments to force children to attend government schools.

But, by opposing this proposal, you are permitting the government to force children to attend state schools.

[Covenstone]

I disagree with this pretty well. For one, religious or non-religious states that require by their laws that students be educated in their schools can be overpassed and allow behavior a nation is against or outrights bans, therefor just hurting the child in the long run. And in very few cases, the state does know best as this could also breed extremism in any direction. Finally, privatized schools could mess with many socialist nations like myself.

As I have said previously, we have had experience with overly religious schools and some objectionable teaching practices therein. However we passed a number of laws about teaching standards and ethics, and pretty much stamped out the extremists and now the schools in Covenstone, while having a broad tent of secular and non-secular types, are all non-extremist and should any be found to be teaching objectionable material ("burn the witches" for example) the government can shut them down.

And we see no reason why this proposal would alter that, given the content of it.

[Beta City]

This resolution is ridiculous, it will only hinder the level of education for schoolchildren. As shown in the past, Parents cannot be trusted to educate their own children.

[Ru-]

We are very disappointed that this excellent proposal has been piled against to the extent it has. It merely serves to guarantee parents the ability to seek out alternate educational options for their children in the event that they find the policies of the state run educational system unacceptable.

Ru is a constitutional nation, and our Constitution demands that our government remain secular, for that is the only way to ensure that it does not discriminate against any faith(s) or the lack of faith. As a result our public schools, their curriculum, and their policies are secular as well. If a parent does not agree with this then they may choose to send their child to a private school that follows the rules and teachings of their faith, or if they cannot afford that, they may begin a homeschooling program. However, this is just in Ru. Without this proposal, we may, if we so choose, decide that our government's view of a secular education is the only acceptable viewpoint on what a child's education needs to be, ban any and all private schools and homeschooling while still requiring every child to attend school. This would leave devout members of our majority religion, and any minority religion, with no option but to send their children to be educated in a matter in which they fundamentally disagree. That decision would make our current fights between church and secular state in our schools far worse, and truly endless.

Alternatively, a nation could choose to have it's state run schools practice the doctrine of the faith favored by their government and require all it's citizens regardless of their faith or lack of attend these schools, and now without this resolution these nations are also free to ban any private parties from trying to set up any alternatives.

The concerns about the objective quality of a private or home-school education are without merit. No where does this resolution say that a government cannot oversee these alternative programs, set standards on the factual knowledge that students must possess, or require these students to be subject to the same standardized tests they use to measure the effectiveness of their individual public schools. This proposal is not about factual knowledge or the quality of education. It is about ideology. All governments, and therefore all government run schools strive for a certain ideology. Even if that ideology is an attempt to be as fair towards all citizens and viewpoints as possible, as it is in Ru, this dedication to neutrality is still in itself an ideology. This proposal seeks to ensure that WA nations refrain from declaring their chosen ideology to be the only one that may hang over a child's education.

We believe that this resolution would champion minority faiths and viewpoints within all WA nations, and that what kind of educational environment your child is exposed to is a fundamentally important concern for all parents everywhere. For these reasons Ru has voted For. However, it would seem like we, along with other like minded nations, will just have to settle for guaranteeing our own citizens these fundamental civil rights within our own borders.

[Shaktirajya]

The government of a nation has a compelling state interest in the education of its citizens. Religious institutions do not have a fundamental right to indoctrinate citizens, nor to teach them things which quite frankly fly in the face of the scientific and wider academic, historical, biological, and anthropological consensus. Looking at the historical track record of Abrahamic religions, will reveal to us a world-view having at its core a triumphalism which celebrates man's dominion over, and hence, exploitation of nature along with a general disregard for human sexual freedom and freedom of thought. Lest one think that our criticism is to be confined to Abrahamic religions only, let it be known that We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby condemn the assertions of Hindu creationists concerning the origin of the world, the injection of legendary and mythological beings into accounts concerning actual, mundane, historical time, and Hindu "fundamentalist" propaganda which seeks to obscure the historical record which reveals to us the migration of Indo-European speakers from OUTSIDE the Indian subcontinent and the overwhelming archaeological, epigraphic, and textual evidence that Indians did indeed, in classical times, ritually slaughter and consume beef. The People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya stands firmly against the proliferation of any and all falsehood masquerading as truth, falsehood which, is contrary to the historical and anthropological record, human dignity, and all good sense.

In light of the aforesaid, We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby vote AGAINST this resolution.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matrurajyasya Shaktirajyasa

[Christian Democrats]

The government of a nation has a compelling state interest in the education of its citizens. Religious institutions do not have a fundamental right to indoctrinate citizens, nor to teach them things which quite frankly fly in the face of the scientific and wider academic, historical, biological, and anthropological consensus. Looking at the historical track record of Abrahamic religions, will reveal to us a world-view having at its core a triumphalism which celebrates man's dominion over, and hence, exploitation of nature along with a general disregard for human sexual freedom and freedom of thought. Lest one think that our criticism is to be confined to Abrahamic religions only, let it be known that We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby condemn the assertions of Hindu creationists concerning the origin of the world, the injection of legendary and mythological beings into accounts concerning actual, mundane, historical time, and Hindu "fundamentalist" propaganda which seeks to obscure the historical record which reveals to us the migration of Indo-European speakers from OUTSIDE the Indian subcontinent and the overwhelming archaeological, epigraphic, and textual evidence that Indians did indeed, in classical times, ritually slaughter and consume beef. The People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya stands firmly against the proliferation of any and all falsehood masquerading as truth, falsehood which, is contrary to the historical and anthropological record, human dignity, and all good sense.

In light of the aforesaid, We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby vote AGAINST this resolution.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matrurajyasya Shaktirajyasa

So, Ambassador, it's perfectly fine, in your opinion, if a Protestant nation, let's say, wants to use its public school system to indoctrinate children with fundamentalist beliefs while, at the same time, prohibiting private schools? Hindus, secularists, and others living in such a nation should not be at liberty to set up their own schools "proliferating" their own beliefs, "masquerading as truth," correct?

[Vandario]

We have voted against, this proposal as it tries to subvert The State with outside Ideology to try and indoctrinate our youth to think like them through the private sector. We work hard to properly educate our children, and don't need outsiders or private sector telling us what to teach them. This matter is best left on a National or Regional level for they better know there own then some far away outsider who knows nothing of the people or nation. In short the WA can butt out.

[Shaktirajya]

So, Ambassador, it's perfectly fine, in your opinion, if a Protestant nation, let's say, wants to use its public school system to indoctrinate children with fundamentalist beliefs while, at the same time, prohibiting private schools? Hindus, secularists, and others living in such a nation should not be at liberty to set up their own schools "proliferating" their own beliefs, "masquerading as truth," correct?

Implementing this proposal is only an attempt to ensure the proliferation and dissemination of your own parochial doctrines. It cannot be said to contain even the thinnest veneer of a humanistic leaning. Also, I object to the use of the word "immodest" in the proposal. I do not believe in entertaining such empty and arbitrary moralism. As the education of our citizens is a compelling state interest, We cannot allow the existence of a private fifth-column within our most august State. That is all.

[Consular]

Earlier in this debate, the representatives of Christian Democrats argued that education is more important than any other industry, because it concerns itself with the production of persons. Though the argument was dismissed because read literally it is rather absurd, we actually quite agree. The education a person receives shapes their view of the world and profoundly influences their character -- it is indescribably important.

However, we fundamentally disagree with their conclusion, that education is far too important for a government monopoly. It is precisely because education is so important that it is essential it is strictly controlled -- to ensure every child is provided with the knowledge to realise their potential. It cannot be safely left to the design of inadequate persons, nor left at the mercy of their whimsical personal interests and agendas.

We additionally reject the argument that private interests should guide private persons -- and on similar grounds. Education is very much a public concern, not a private one. To leave such an important vehicle for guiding and shaping the persons who will one day lead us to the fractured attention of private interests would be profoundly irresponsible.

We also feel we should object to the arguments made by the representatives of Christian Democrats concerning the role of parents and the family. A child is still their own person, they are not entirely subject to the will of their parents. A parent has no perverse right to choose that their child should be disadvantaged through an improper education. A child is a ward, raised by their parents yes, but under the protection and supervision of the state, until they are able.

It does not help that we are innately suspicious of the author's intentions. What is the purpose of private schools, if not to covertly subvert the intended outcomes of the state education system? If the two schools teach the same curiculum to the same standards, then what exactly are parents choosing?

[Ardortia]

inb4 Consular gets called a fascist or his arguments are called 'fascist-ic'.