[DEFEATED] Choice in Education

[Christian Democrats]

No, it would have no effect on total funding for public education, and it would increase per-pupil funding for public education.

Argentinstan, let's say, spends $1 million on the education of 100 students in a public school. In other words, it spends $10,000 per public school student. A private school is built, and 10 students' parents (at their own expense) enroll them in the new school. Now, $1 million is being spent on the education of 90 public school students. This is $11,111 per public school student, or an 11% increase.

Good for the 10 students, good for the 90 students, good for everybody involved.

I don't believe it's good for the 90 students. If the state is paying 10000 a student, it would take the now freed up funds and use it on something else.

What would be wrong with having extra money to spend on other projects? The spending per student would be the same, no?

Are we to make ethnic minority students "listen to the views" of supremacists?

This is actually an argument in favor of private schooling. If the public schools are racist, minorities can send their children to private schools with more tolerant views. On the other side of the coin, it is highly unlikely that minority parents, living in a nation with tolerant public schools, would choose to opt out of public schooling and send their children to private schools with racist views.

No, it would have no effect on total funding for public education

Didn't you guys just pull a proposal to privatize schooling under the reasoning that privatizing schools cuts education spending?

Yes, that proposal sought to mandate the privatization of education. Mandatory privatization would certainly reduce public funding for education, so the proposal was inappropriate for the Educational subcategory (which increase public education spending).

This proposal is about permitting private education, which would (in itself) have no effect on total public education spending.

[Christian Democrats]

Currently, the proposal (counting BBCode) is 3481 characters, just below the 3500-character limit.

There will not be room for the addition of any blocker provisions.

[Alinghi Federal-Democratic Republic]

The senator representing of the Alinghi Federal-Democratic Republic, Adwenebww Kulimbwa Mbodou

In Alinghi any canton permit the homescholling, exept for a motivated motive, and approved by a judge. Now if the resulution pass this obliges us to permit homeschooling for all?
In this case we will oppose this resolution

[Christian Democrats]

In Alinghi any canton permit the homescholling, exept for a motivated motive, and approved by a judge. Now if the resulution pass this obliges us to permit homeschooling for all?
In this case we will oppose this resolution

Yes, this proposal would require your nation to allow homeschooling for all. That said, it would not forbid you from regulating the curriculum of homeschooled students or from requiring that they be tested. If they were failing to learn, you could force their parents to (re)enroll them in public schools. Therefore, we're uncertain why you have a problem with this proposal. Surely, families should be the judges of their own "motivated motive[s]" with the state taking action against them if and only if they fail to perform their duties adequately.

[Excidium Planetis]

Other things being equal, we would certainly agree that such skills are beneficial. We would note, however, that science is not a matter of belief. We would also note that it is never proposed that students should be taught "opposing viewpoints" and encouraged to "make up their own minds" on electromagnetism, photosynthesis or any other area of scientific theory. This only ever applies to the study of origins and as such is not the encouragement of critical thinking but special pleading to suspend it where its use would be detrimental to religious prejudice.

"If your scientific theories are truly matters of fact and not belief, then surely they will prevail over any competing theories through sound reasoning and demonstratable principles. It does not harm students to inform them that some believed planets to be flat in the past... after all, it is apparent that planets are spherical, and this is demonstrated by a massive body of evidence. Reasoning prevails. If your students are fooled into believing competing theories over the state taught ones, your nation must not have many facts to back up what you claim is not a matter of belief."

Are we to make ethnic minority students "listen to the views" of supremacists? If not then this too is special pleading for religion.

"Views unchallenged are unproven. Students who do not have their beliefs criticized in school will enter life unprepared to deal with serious criticism by adults in the ordinary world.

"It is also curious that you believe the ideology your state favors should be taught to those who do not hold it... seemingly religious minorities, but not the other way around. You seek to criticize the ideas of others while preventing criticism by them of your ideas. One sided debates are not debates."

[Aclion]

Currently, the proposal (counting BBCode) is 3481 characters, just below the 3500-character limit.

There will not be room for the addition of any blocker provisions.

That leaves you with 19 characters. And as luck, fate and the obvious will of some deity or another would have it, "WA BBQ each Tuesday" is exactly 19 characters.
Otherwise this proposal has our approval, figuratively speaking. But also literally speaking, once it submitted to be approved.

[United Massachusetts]

Edit Suggestions

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
Choice in Education
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that education -- like speech, association, religion, or marriage -- is a civil right;, that civil rights necessarily imply choice in their exercise;, and, therefore, that people should enjoy freedom of choice in education, just as they enjoy freedom of choice in speech, association, religion, or marriage,

Further recognizing that parents have a natural right and duty to direct the upbringing and provide for the welfare of their children, free of arbitrary interference, and thatmaking the role of the state in childrearing should be subsidiary to that of the family,

Understanding that the diversification of education is beneficial to society because it helps to combat the pernicious effects of intellectual and cultural homogenization and to promote the circulation of a diversity of perspectives in national life, thus enhancing opportunities for people to discover truth and achieve happiness,

Further understandingNoting that non-state schooling can serve as a praiseworthy supplement or a necessary alternative to state schooling in nations where state schools are controlled by totalitarian interests that try to indoctrinate children with illiberal or immoral values, where state schools are overwhelmed, or where state schools are unable to meet the needs of certain minority communities,

Seeking to strengthen freedom of choice in the exercise of civil rights, to reduce coercive monopolyies in the provision of necessary services, and to assist all children in developing their minds and actualizing their potentials,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, the following terms:

1. State school: a primary or secondary school that is owned or operated by the government;
   
2. Non-state school: a primary or secondary school that is owned and operated by the private sector;
   
3. 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;

2. Affirms that parents and legal guardians have a right, at their own expense, to remove their children from state schools or to keep their children out of state schools and, instead, to have their children homeschooled or educated in non-state schools;

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

4. Permits the government to impose reasonable regulations, such as curricular requirements, standardized testing requirements, and financial disclosure requirements, on non-state schooling and on homeschooling;

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; and

6. Allows the government, with due process of law, to mandate that a parent or legal guardian (re)enroll a child in a state school if the child is not making reasonable academic progress in a non-state school or homeschool, compared to the progress of state-schooled peers.

[Bakhton]

"We have the facts and we're voting yes," announces Lara Qzu boldly.
Jeffrey smokes a pipe, "I get your reference, ma'am!"
"Shh! References don't work if you acknowledge them as such!"

[Christian Democrats]

This proposal has been submitted, and here's the campaign telegram that we are sending to delegates:

Most Honorable Delegate:

Our nation recently submitted a World Assembly proposal, titled Choice in Education, which would protect the fundamental right of families to choose private/independent schools for their children or to homeschool their children, subject to reasonable governmental regulations. We hope that you will read our proposal Choice in Education, approve it, and vote for it when it reaches the floor.

Freedom of choice in education is an important, well-established human right, recognized throughout the real world. For example, the United Nations (1966) has affirmed "the liberty of parents . . . to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities." In the European Union, the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000) protects "the right of parents to ensure the education and teaching of their children in conformity with their religious, philosophical and pedagogical convictions." In the United States, the Supreme Court has recognized freedom of choice in education in several landmark decisions, including Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), Farrington v. Tokushige (1927), and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972).

Choice in Education would not require public funding for private schools, it would not prevent the government from regulating the curricula of private schools, and it would not forbid the enforcement of standardized testing requirements. National governments would retain the power to (re)enroll children in state/public schools if such children were failing to make reasonable academic progress.

If you have any questions about Choice in Education, please reply to this telegram.

Thank you for your time,

Christian Democrats
11x World Assembly Author

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

OCC: i'm so busy that i do not even remember if i voted

[Imperium Anglorum]

This resolution will enter the main voting floor in a bit more than two hours.

[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.

[Covenstone]

Given that our nation has had a turbulent history with (for want of a better phrase) "religious types" imposing their beliefs on our curriculums and schools, and that we think education should be available to all, you would think we would be against this.

However it is a fair and balanced proposal, it has a suitable amount of checks and balances in it, it does not allow for rampant bigotry or religious extremism to flourish in private or home schools (because the government can monitor and step in if it believes it is necessary) and it does allow for those who want a more flexible education to have it.

I really can't find fault with it.

[Yodle]

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:

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declarat ... an-rights/

[Cemberia]

The Dominion finds this proposal too radical for what it is suggesting. That a basic human right should be split up into three different categories and even then given to the Private Sector? Nuts.

The Dominion establishes all basic Civil/Human rights as an acceptable government cost. It also establishes that these basic needs of all human peoples should be free and accessible to the populace of its borders. Although we agree that education is a human right we vote against this proposal on the merits that no child should have to choose between a great education or a good one. All education should be of the best quality and it should be freely provided to our youth by the state.

This proposal is nonsense.

[Europe and Oceania]

We voted against this.

[Wallenburg]

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:

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declarat ... an-rights/

A pack of rabid gnomes rushes into the voting chamber and tackles the Yodlean to the ground. They drag him out of the chamber, muttering "the forbidden name cannot be forgiven".

[Antiyard]

Could you add a operative clause that prohibits schooling beyond primary schooling in a institute that is not recognised or accredited by a government organisation which is independent of the executive?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Could you add a operative clause that prohibits schooling beyond primary schooling in a institute that is not recognised or accredited by a government organisation which is independent of the executive?

Resolutions cannot be amended once submitted.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

I don't see how that's a valid criticism of a right. A right is generally understood as a minimum level of some thing. For example, in healthcare, people can purchase better healthcare beyond the minimum level provided by the state.

[Christian Democrats]

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.

"I have a right, but I have only one choice in exercising it -- the one that the state gives me."

What a strange conception of rights.

The Dominion finds this proposal too radical for what it is suggesting. That a basic human right should be split up into three different categories and even then given to the Private Sector? Nuts.

So I assume that your government tells people what religion to follow ("freedom" of religion) and that it assigns them spouses ("right" to marry) because it would be "nuts" to allow the private sector to decide such matters, right?

Although we agree that education is a human right we vote against this proposal on the merits that no child should have to choose between a great education or a good one.

How is it a human right if the only option is the one that the state gives?

[Cemberia]

The Dominion finds this proposal too radical for what it is suggesting. That a basic human right should be split up into three different categories and even then given to the Private Sector? Nuts.

So I assume that your government tells people what religion to follow ("freedom" of religion) and that it assigns them spouses ("right" to marry) because it would be "nuts" to allow the private sector to decide such matters, right?

Although we agree that education is a human right we vote against this proposal on the merits that no child should have to choose between a great education or a good one.

How is it a human right if the only option is the one that the state gives?

Although you dissected my response quite well I will offer you this. This Governing body does not force its citizens to choose between poor education or good. We offer the BEST education possible. We do not leave this matter to the money-hoarding Private Sector that would sooner have a child lose educational coverage due to a lack of funds. All education is FREELY provided as it should be.

I will allow your comments to slide by this time as you seem to assume things that are not true and this is unbecoming of a World Assembly setting.

As for how education is a human right? Well you argued yourself that fairly well and so has the World Assembly. They define EDUCATION as a human right. We adhere to this. Just because this great nation does not give it's people a choice does not mean it is not a human right. I will say once again, what is better? Choosing between poor and good? Or having THE BEST education possible for free?

This proposal is just another attempt by your side to control the world with its ridiculous policy-making.

[Christian Democrats]

So I assume that your government tells people what religion to follow ("freedom" of religion) and that it assigns them spouses ("right" to marry) because it would be "nuts" to allow the private sector to decide such matters, right?


How is it a human right if the only option is the one that the state gives?

Although you dissected my response quite well I will offer you this. This Governing body does not force its citizens to choose between poor education or good. We offer the BEST education possible. We do not leave this matter to the money-hoarding Private Sector that would sooner have a child lose educational coverage due to a lack of funds. All education is FREELY provided as it should be.

I will allow your comments to slide by this time as you seem to assume things that are not true and this is unbecoming of a World Assembly setting.

As for how education is a human right? Well you argued yourself that fairly well and so has the World Assembly. They define EDUCATION as a human right. We adhere to this. Just because this great nation does not give it's people a choice does not mean it is not a human right. I will say once again, what is better? Choosing between poor and good? Or having THE BEST education possible for free?

This proposal is just another attempt by your side to control the world with its ridiculous policy-making.

Ambassador, your response is nonsensical. It is obviously so if we substituted almost any other human right.

This Governing body does not force its citizens to choose between poor religion or good. We offer the BEST religion possible. We do not leave this matter to the money-hoarding Private Sector.

. . .

As for how freedom of religion is a human right? Well you argued yourself that fairly well and so has the World Assembly. They define freedom of religion as a human right. We adhere to this. Just because this great nation does not give it's people a choice does not mean it is not a human right. I will say once again, what is better? Choosing between poor and good? Or having THE BEST religion possible?

[Cemberia]

Although you dissected my response quite well I will offer you this. This Governing body does not force its citizens to choose between poor education or good. We offer the BEST education possible. We do not leave this matter to the money-hoarding Private Sector that would sooner have a child lose educational coverage due to a lack of funds. All education is FREELY provided as it should be.

I will allow your comments to slide by this time as you seem to assume things that are not true and this is unbecoming of a World Assembly setting.

As for how education is a human right? Well you argued yourself that fairly well and so has the World Assembly. They define EDUCATION as a human right. We adhere to this. Just because this great nation does not give it's people a choice does not mean it is not a human right. I will say once again, what is better? Choosing between poor and good? Or having THE BEST education possible for free?

This proposal is just another attempt by your side to control the world with its ridiculous policy-making.

Ambassador, your response is nonsensical. It is obviously so if we substituted almost any other human right.

This Governing body does not force its citizens to choose between poor religion or good. We offer the BEST religion possible. We do not leave this matter to the money-hoarding Private Sector.

. . .

As for how freedom of religion is a human right? Well you argued yourself that fairly well and so has the World Assembly. They define freedom of religion as a human right. We adhere to this. Just because this great nation does not give it's people a choice does not mean it is not a human right. I will say once again, what is better? Choosing between poor and good? Or having THE BEST religion possible?

Unfortunately sir, religion is not a human right. Freedom of Religion is. You are not granted the right to be religious but you are given the ability to choose betwixt the thousands of denominations of nonsense. Again, where is your challenge to my claims? You have done nothing but repeat your same response and it does nothing to address this flagrant attempt at controlling education to your norms. Your response makes absolutely no sense.

I admire your effort to bring policy before the World Assembly but unfortunately this issue does not concern anyone at the World Assembly, these are matters of state not global concerns.

[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.