[DEFEATED] Choice in Education

[Nova Nacio]

Good idea, miserable execution, for all of the reasons Westermire and Bongo Johnson have successfully pointed out. Nova Nacio is AGAINST this all the way.

[Covenstone]

Your Excellencies,

We are going to vote against this resolution for the following reasons :

1/ The definition of Non-state school

a primary or secondary school that is owned and operated by the private sector

is too broad : we want to be able to restrict the possibility for non-profit organizations

2/ We completely disagree with statement 5

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

Sincerely yours.

Charity & non-profit *are* the private sector. Just because they don't make money doesn't put them in the public sector.

And why do you disagree with Clause 5? If you gave any explanation, perhaps an understanding could be reached?

[Noraika]

Charity & non-profit *are* the private sector. Just because they don't make money doesn't put them in the public sector.

And why do you disagree with Clause 5? If you gave any explanation, perhaps an understanding could be reached?

There's nothing defining what does and does not constitute "indoctrination", and the private sector is not restricted or prohibited from "indoctrination" in the same manner. Private educators aren't held up to the same standard, and there's in general a lack of accountability for private schools to provide a well-rounded education on a myriad number of subjects, especially not on certain topics which could cause any questioning on that schools beliefs in the students.

There's not really any protections to ensure that a private schooling sector is well...educating, and the one clause that could protect the integrity of education is very weak, and could easily be countered by that school claiming it's indoctrination (OOC: like the religious school I went to on evolution). Not to mention that the idea of "moral indoctrination" makes this very likely to be used against the welfare of lgbt+ students, which is a trend that could be expected to worsen, and there is no protections for the students against political, economic, social, or moral indoctrination in the private sector.

It's overall a reduction in the standards of education rather than ensuring standards are in place to give students a well-rounded and beneficial education to become better adults, and is too concerned with "parents over students". It gives parents the right to choose how their children will view the world instead of working to better education to provide the most well-rounded perspectives. No one individual has the right, even to a child, to attempt to infringe on a child's freedom of conscious, to come to their own opinions, and that means parents might have to simply acknowledge that their children will learn about things (and the facts and consensuses regarding them) that may cause them to think or challenge their parent's beliefs.

That's at least the issues which I have been delegated to speak of.

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

would include such things as religious instruction.

That is a fine example of a subject that is deliberately excluded.

Yes. And an issue that citizens deserve to determine for themselves.

His Majesty's Government in Dragonslund does not concern itself with whether the smallfolk follow a religion or not. Honestly His Majesty's Government doesn't concern itself with the religions the nobility or maesters follow. While the crown does own and operate schools to ensure that the population is capable of reading, writing and arithmetic (somewhat required due to our complex currency system), these state schools do not touch religious instruction at all. In fact they are by royal decree expressly prohibited from touching the topic. We have three major religions, and dozens of minor religions not to mention perhaps thousands of local cults.

That being said, some families view being instructed in religious maters as important. Since state run schools are expressly prohibited from teaching the subject there exists to service those families religious run non-state schools. And it should be the right of individual subjects to determine for themselves if they would be serviced better by a religious non-state school. Since we are specifically dealing with subjects who are minors, and thus not legally capable of making that determination it falls to their next of kin, in most cases their parents (though other kin are capable of making that determination should a parent not be available).

And religious instruction is just one of many different courses that might be considered of importance by parents but is otherwise ignored by the Crown Schools (schools operated directly by His Majesty's Government). Indeed, only a small number of people, primarily urban smallfolk, even use Crown Schools. In the provinces it is most common for their children to attend either religious schools, or schools run by local crafts guilds or as a not-for-profit corporation at the behest of the local lord.

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

There's nothing defining what does and does not constitute "indoctrination", and the private sector is not restricted or prohibited from "indoctrination" in the same manner.

By that same token there wouldn't be a restriction on this 'indoctrination' in the public sector either. Some states could concivably use their school systems to teach that the Divine Right of Kings is an evil for example.

Private educators aren't held up to the same standard, and there's in general a lack of accountability for private schools to provide a well-rounded education on a myriad number of subjects, especially not on certain topics which could cause any questioning on that schools beliefs in the students.

I would argue that is a matter for nations to determine for themselves. Not withstanding the limitations on WA legislation (OOC: Resolutions are character limited) there is the matter that the WA contains nations at all manner of technological development. The WA has star empires that span several stellar systems and it has feudal city states. And that's before we get into he hundreds if not thousands of different sapient species represented in the WA.

There's not really any protections to ensure that a private schooling sector is well...educating, and the one clause that could protect the integrity of education is very weak, and could easily be countered by that school claiming it's indoctrination (OOC: like the religious school I went to on evolution).

Not really. It should be assumed that member nations have competent governments and that their departments, or ministries of education are capable of determining if students are being educated or not in their school of choice. Further there is no protection from state schools which are simply not adequate for the needs of the population.

Again, it would depend on the state in question. From my previous example where you have a feudal state, teaching evolution could very well be considered indoctrination as a matter of faith simply due to the lack of scientific development. The same could be said of germ theory of disease. Indeed, were I to walk through the capital shouting to the world that the Red Death (a plague disease) was caused by an invisible organism that lives in the blood of rats and is transferred from rats to humans and other animals through being bitten by fleas I would fully expect to be taken to the local lunatic asylum.

Not to mention that the idea of "moral indoctrination" makes this very likely to be used against the welfare of lgbt+ students, which is a trend that could be expected to worsen, and there is no protections for the students against political, economic, social, or moral indoctrination in the private sector.

The same is true for state run schools. A communist country for example would have every reason to paint free market capitalism as essentially evil. Vise versa the same could be true of a capitalist state.

As for the so-called LGBT+ issue, it depends on the nation in question. Not every member nation even acknowledges that there is such a thing as a sexual orientation. (OOC: The very idea of sexual orientation did not exist IRL prior to the late 19th century. While the sexual practices of sexual minorities were known. Being gay myself I found the subject of historical perceptions of non-heterosexual orientations to be somewhat fascinating.) While I cannot speak for other nations the Dragonslinding who are not members of the Church of the Seven in general do not care who has sex with whom provided we are speaking of someone who isn't a first born son of a great house. In that case, we still don't care as long as he marries a woman and produces true born heirs.

Indeed even in schools operated by the Church of the Seven it is unlikely that these issues would even be brought up. Simply put no one cares what a smallfolk man or woman does in their sleeping chamber, and if they are a Septon, Septa, or Maester they have taken a vow of celibacy and are expected to follow it anyway. The lords are going to do as they will. There are some that practice buggery to a one degree or an other (indeed there are houses of ill repute that specifically cater to those tastes in major cities), and in the capital the number of bastards the King has alone could fill a school (and those are just the ones he acknowledges).

It's overall a reduction in the standards of education rather than ensuring standards are in place to give students a well-rounded and beneficial education to become better adults, and is too concerned with "parents over students". It gives parents the right to choose how their children will view the world instead of working to better education to provide the most well-rounded perspectives.

We would argue that this simply isn't the case. If we make the first assumption that member nations have competent departments or ministries of education as appropriate for their current level of development then they can and should be able to produce curriculum requirements appropriate for non-state schools, if any, in their nation.

As for parents choosing how their children view the world they basically do that by default anyway. Indeed for a small child the home is essentially their entire world. Their parents and their friend in the immediate vicinity are for all intents and purposes their entire world. The views and values of those people are going to count with them far more than the King far away in the capital, or a Grand Maester all the way across the country.

No one individual has the right, even to a child, to attempt to infringe on a child's freedom of conscious, to come to their own opinions, and that means parents might have to simply acknowledge that their children will learn about things (and the facts and consensuses regarding them) that may cause them to think or challenge their parent's beliefs.

By that line of reasoning then all instruction should be abolished. As a Northerner, I'm less well versed in viticulture, but I know sheep herding well, my father was a shepherd. If a child wishes to believe that two ewes can produce a lamb he is certainly free to, but instruction would teach this child the truth, that a ram is required. Yes, this is an absurd example to be sure, but the matter stands. Likewise for a pre-modern society like Dragonslund it would be considered insane to believe that diseases are caused by invisible organisms that live in and on the body as opposed to imbalances of the humors and foul odors.

[Become]

I agree with most of the resolution. The parts that I don't agree with are that there needs to be more protection for non-state and homeschools from a totalitarian government. In the real world, Christian schools meet standards decided by Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI). Being accountable to ACSI prevents and often eliminates government control of these schools and allows them to meet standards that are relevant to the school. I also don't like the wording that states that we should be against "illiberal" education.

[Covenstone]

Charity & non-profit *are* the private sector. Just because they don't make money doesn't put them in the public sector.

And why do you disagree with Clause 5? If you gave any explanation, perhaps an understanding could be reached?

There's nothing defining what does and does not constitute "indoctrination", and the private sector is not restricted or prohibited from "indoctrination" in the same manner. Private educators aren't held up to the same standard, and there's in general a lack of accountability for private schools to provide a well-rounded education on a myriad number of subjects, especially not on certain topics which could cause any questioning on that schools beliefs in the students.

There's not really any protections to ensure that a private schooling sector is well...educating, and the one clause that could protect the integrity of education is very weak, and could easily be countered by that school claiming it's indoctrination (OOC: like the religious school I went to on evolution). Not to mention that the idea of "moral indoctrination" makes this very likely to be used against the welfare of lgbt+ students, which is a trend that could be expected to worsen, and there is no protections for the students against political, economic, social, or moral indoctrination in the private sector.

It's overall a reduction in the standards of education rather than ensuring standards are in place to give students a well-rounded and beneficial education to become better adults, and is too concerned with "parents over students". It gives parents the right to choose how their children will view the world instead of working to better education to provide the most well-rounded perspectives. No one individual has the right, even to a child, to attempt to infringe on a child's freedom of conscious, to come to their own opinions, and that means parents might have to simply acknowledge that their children will learn about things (and the facts and consensuses regarding them) that may cause them to think or challenge their parent's beliefs.

That's at least the issues which I have been delegated to speak of.

Clause 4.

[Kahanistan]

The resolution calls for taking children out of home schooling and enrolling them in state schools if they are not making satisfactory academic progress. It utterly fails to mention the possible effects on mental and social health of isolating children even if they do succeed academically. We will thus vote against this draft resolution.

[DogeSolo]

It's pretty late to debate now but The Federation will fully oppose this resolution on grounds that if were religion being turned to education to educate the population, it effectively nullify our federation's effort in making our population intelligent and away from the influence of blasphemous teaching and such.

And while I personally study in an independent high school, which still adheres to the government policy partially, all I can say is that NOT ALL PARENTS are as smart and idealistic as you thought

From the Office of President Doge,
The Federation of DogeSolo

[Covenstone]

I've never watched such an adventurous and progressive vote die in real time before. It was not a happy thing to watch

[Libertarian North America]

I've never watched such an adventurous and progressive vote die in real time before. It was not a happy thing to watch

It's rather puzzling how many countries that seemed to take pride in their freedom were so ready to strike it down simply because the free market was indicated as a potential alternative.

[Transilia]

"Choice in Education" was defeated 12,123 votes to 3,701.

[Vandario]

I've never watched such an adventurous and progressive vote die in real time before. It was not a happy thing to watch

I don't know, I'm rather happy ambassador. Perhaps a drink will lighten your mood.

[Cemberia]

A victory for each country today. Our freedom to run and govern ourselves was upheld and sovereignty is held intact. Corporate Greed will never win as long as intelligent minds keep foolish ideas at bay.

[Covenstone]

I've never watched such an adventurous and progressive vote die in real time before. It was not a happy thing to watch

I don't know, I'm rather happy ambassador. Perhaps a drink will lighten your mood.

I am allergic to alcohol, so a drink would probably kill me, but I will take your comment in the spirit it was intended (if you will pardon the pun)

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

It is a sad day that this proposal failed. I strongly recommend that CD rework it to address the most objectionable aspects and resubmit it.

[Covenstone]

It is a sad day that this proposal failed. I strongly recommend that CD rework it to address the most objectionable aspects and resubmit it.

Based on the various comments, the most objectionable part is that it allows private education. And if that is removed, there is very little point to the rest of the proposal.

[Vandario]

It is a sad day that this proposal failed. I strongly recommend that CD rework it to address the most objectionable aspects and resubmit it.

Based on the various comments, the most objectionable part is that it allows private education. And if that is removed, there is very little point to the rest of the proposal.

Our issue was how it subverted The State with foreign influence. Our children are sacred, to make a bill so outsiders and corporate greed can corrupt them is a huge red sign for us. This bill attempted to violate the sovereignry of nations to dictate how their children are educated. Especially the line about being against "Ililberal" was in bad taste, as it's assumed the Liberalism is good or that everyone desires it. If one wishes to be Liberal they may as that is their nation, but not all put Freedom above all else. It's simmply what you and the people of that nation prefer, as ours prefer Nation above all else as well strong themes of national unity. A Communist nation would prefer Equality above all, none are any more right or wrong then the other just a preference on how one wishes to live. This bill had gone against that, and so those like myself spoke out against it, and voted against.

[Covenstone]

Based on the various comments, the most objectionable part is that it allows private education. And if that is removed, there is very little point to the rest of the proposal.

Our issue was how it subverted The State with foreign influence. Our children are sacred, to make a bill so outsiders and corporate greed can corrupt them is a huge red sign for us. This bill attempted to violate the sovereignry of nations to dictate how their children are educated. Especially the line about being against "Ililberal" was in bad taste, as it's assumed the Liberalism is good or that everyone desires it. If one wishes to be Liberal they may as that is their nation, but not all put Freedom above all else. It's simmply what you and the people of that nation prefer, as ours prefer Nation above all else as well strong themes of national unity. A Communist nation would prefer Equality above all, none are any more right or wrong then the other just a preference on how one wishes to live. This bill had gone against that, and so those like myself spoke out against it, and voted against.

Perhaps if the bill had passed it would have allowed a school to open in your nation that could have taught you government what a dictionary was and how to use it, but since it didn't, never mind.

[Vandario]

Perhaps if the bill had passed it would have allowed a school to open in your nation that could have taught you government what a dictionary was and how to use it, but since it didn't, never mind.

So petty insults now? I thought we could have a civil discussion, but instead you wish to be rude, so be it, I wish you a good day as this discussion is over.

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

It is a sad day that this proposal failed. I strongly recommend that CD rework it to address the most objectionable aspects and resubmit it.

Based on the various comments, the most objectionable part is that it allows private education. And if that is removed, there is very little point to the rest of the proposal.

"Indeed, ambassador. It is rather unfortunate that other states are not so enlightened as Dragonslund. Indeed our King has made it a priority that even the small folk should be capable of reading the common tongue. Naturally this causes some of the lesser lords to chafe, as it removes the youngest of the smallfolk able to do work from the fields, but over all it has actually improved things a great deal in Dragonslund. Indeed a whole new industry has arisen due to wide spread literacy, and it has lessened the importance of the Maester class which previously were about all the persons who were literate in the Kingdom. Indeed there is rumors of wanting to affix the epithet of 'the wise' onto our King."

[Templar Republic]

Your Excellencies,

We are going to vote against this resolution for the following reasons :

1/ The definition of Non-state school is too broad : we want to be able to restrict the possibility for non-profit organizations

2/ We completely disagree with statement 5

Sincerely yours.

Charity & non-profit *are* the private sector. Just because they don't make money doesn't put them in the public sector.

And why do you disagree with Clause 5? If you gave any explanation, perhaps an understanding could be reached?

Sorry for the lack of explanation.

With clause 3, we couldn't restrict non-state schools to schools ruled only by non-profit organizations. Every corporation could create its own school.

Clause 5 is too restrictive. Clause 4 is enough : by giving permission to governments to impose reasonable régulations, it's not necessary to forbit unreasonnable régulations. In law, the restriction to be verified by judges is different.

[Attempted Socialism]

I've never watched such an adventurous and progressive vote die in real time before. It was not a happy thing to watch

Based on the various comments, the most objectionable part is that it allows private education. And if that is removed, there is very little point to the rest of the proposal.

Ambassador Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum coughs to clear her throat, before the microphone is turned on. Then, pausing a second to prod an aide to turn her cue-cards, MacBeths melodious voice sounds through the deliberative chamber.
"Please allow me to, from the perspective of the Solidarity Movement at least, explain why we saw this proposal dangerously adventurous and very much regressive, and why perceiving our vote as merely opposition to private education is superficial or simplistic.
We view education as one of the most important functions of any government or government-like entity. Indeed, after securing the basic physical necessities for the well-being of people living within our borders, we view education as the most pressing matter the state. Roughly a sixth of our entire GDP is directly spent on education, while another sixth is directly derived from - and funnels back to - education in terms of various public industries, services and research. Furthermore, education touches on most other facets of our lives, if nothing else by the virtue of eighteen years of formal education, ages six through twenty-four.
While World Assembly resolutions requires basic literacy and basic arithmetic to be taught, the Solidarity Movement has moved beyond to a degree where our three commonly used levels of education, Basic; Professional; High; corresponds to the internationally recognised levels of Masters Degree, PhD and Tenured/Full Professor. To be blunt, education matters to us. It matters too much, I would claim, to risk it on a risky adventure without very convincing arguments."
The Ambassador breathes, a sharp sound that breaks the impression of a perfectly studied speech.

"This level of education allows our residents to live informed and happy lives, and it offers our state a wealth of intellect on any subject imaginable. It decreases disease and adverse health effects from lifestyle choices. It enables what our economists call 'university tourism', foreigners who come here as tourists to attend lectures, visit libraries or study in some other way. Education, rather than any geological resource, is what brings prosperity to the Solidarity Movement and her residents.
As you can imagine, this actually creates an ethical demand for both our state, our society and us as individuals to participate and contribute to this system. By far, most do: Socialists realise the opportunities that our first-rate education system offers both us as individuals, and more importantly, us as society and nation. A few, however, do not. Some feel that eighteen years of formal education is too much, and robs them of their childrens childhood. Some feel that the vaccine-system, which we mostly implement through childcare and the early years of education, robs them of their ability to mistreat their children with measles or other plagues. Others again may have more complaints.
Common for these parents, however, is that they lack the expertise in educational, economic, sociological or health sciences that actually makes this an informed choice. There's a direct correlation between the few percent of every class who, for whatever reason, fail to attain a Basic level of education, and parents who believe patently ridiculous things like I mentioned before. Though they are not aware of it, their lack of knowledge, and lack of awareness thereof, make them mistreat their own children."
There's a short rummaging with the cue cards. MacBeth takes a sip of water.

"This proposal directly enables and empowers such ill-informed parents. Rather than allowing states to do what is best for the state, society, parents, children and future generations, this proposal suggests that parents should be given the power to decide, irregardless of their ability to do so in an informed manner. This comes out of a belief of indeterminate origin that simply because people may be physically capable of having offspring, they are also qualified to make quite substantial choices with lifelong consequences for their children. Now, obviously, most parents do try to make informed, intelligent choices on behalf of their children. In the Solidarity Movement, such parents would stay with the in-place public option of education, even if this proposal should be resubmitted and go through. However, the few who don't, the few who might be taken advantage of with a resolution such as this, are really the ones most deserving of our help. Their inability to make informed choices on behalf of their children should not harm, should not unduly impact, their childrens lives."
The Ambassador seems to shortly stretch.

"As such, our opposition is actually not on the superficial level where we oppose private education, though I will get to that, but the more fundamental question of whether poor parents should be allowed to, through their inability, harm their children and through them, the future of society. Should parents, whose only known merit is their physical ability to procreate, be given even the potential to harm their offspring or their state? We would argue the answer is obviously 'no'; such momentous decisions should be informed, and if the parents aren't and cannot be informed, then the choice is not up to them."
A new round of cue-cards is placed on the pulpit.

"Furthermore, we had three other reasons to oppose this proposed resolution. One, as you correctly point out, is that it is another open door for capitalists to exploit for profit what should be held in trust by the general public. While, as some discussed during earlier deliberations, this could be taxed or regulated out of existence, we are not certain that is a possibility under a fair reading of the bill. As such, better safe than sorry.
In addendum to this, I would also note that offering education on the private marketplace would make education, rather than a public good, service or right, an industry. A private production. To us, that is anathema.
Second, we found the proposal to be a blatant, and frankly disgusting, attempt to funnel religious schools and religious indoctrination into education systems worldwide under the guise of 'civil rights'. This would, again, under a fair reading of the bill, likely open for religious schools and proselytising aimed at children, something which is strictly forbidden under current Socialist law.
Third, even though wealth disparity between our poorest and richest residents is low, it would enable the slightly wealthier to withdraw from our public education system, separating into 'them' and 'us' both in terms of social circles and, potentially, quality of education. This is unlikely to create classes in the space of a single generation, but the risk alone merits our clear and vigilant response."
MacBeth lifts the glass to her lips again.

"In short, because education matters so much to us, we aren't prepared to go off on ill-thought 'adventures'. Our education system is, to my mind, far more progressive than most systems that allow private schools. We aren't in the habit of voting for resolutions that force us to open our economy to for-profit exploitation, especially not an area as important as education. Likewise, we're not going to help religions corrupt the minds of minors, and we're certainly not going to rebuild the classes that we painstakingly removed over a century ago.
Most importantly, however, is the built-in assumption in the defeated proposal that parents should be allowed to stymie the development and educational achievements of their children, simply because said parents are capable of reproduction. Our future, as state, as society and individuals, is too important to allow uninformed parents to make lasting damages. Like parents who lack the necessary abilities to talk with their children without violence, parents who damage their children by denying them an education are in dire need of help. We give them that help right now, and defeating this resolution was important to keep it that way.
I hope this has cleared up at least why we voted as we did. Thank you for listening."

MacBeth raises her right hand in a fist, and starts her customary greeting: "Workers of th-"
The aide who had flipped the cue cards grabs MacBeths arm and pulls out a much larger card to show the Ambassador.
"Oh, yeah. Sorry, forgot that," she tries to whisper to the aide, but the effort is lost as the microphone easily catches the conversation. MacBeth coughs before turning to speak directly into the microphone.
"I've been informed that, to seem less partisan and the Solidarity Movement less like a rogue nation hell-bent on world revolution, I am to leave out my usual greeting to my revolutionary comrades of the International, and not wish a quick and forceful take-over of the means of production by the workers, so the proletariat can lose its chains and abolish the bourgeoisie. Instead, on behalf of the Solidarity Movement, I wish for a careful deliberation and the eventual and peaceful seizing of the means of production by democratic vote."

Ambassador Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum turns off the microphone, collects her cue-cards and leaves the podium with her aide in tow.