[DEFEATED] Choice in Education

[Hiraeth Rose]

To the Christian Democrats, first and foremost we would like to thank you for your resolution.

We may be late to this debate, but regrettably we would like to state that the Queendom of Hiraeth Rose will not stand with you favourably on this vote, for the following reasons.

Hiraeth Rose firmly believes in the value of state education. We are a nation that firmly appreciates the value of civil rights. However, we believe in the value of the state, that the state may add value to the individual's lives.

Unfortunate as it is, we would first like to assert that the individual family unit may not be fully capable of making the "best" decision for the child. We find that it will be extremely unfortunate if such a resolution is passed to the effect that individual sovereign nations lose their children to poor home-schooling education. Hiraeth Rose is a new nation, and we only remember the days where our country had received sub-par education in non-state institutions. We would like to raise many historical examples within our own nation, where in the era without state sanctioned education, many children did not receive quality education, if any at all.

Hiraeth Rose also expresses fears that new private schools set up by foreign parties that deviate from the Hiraeth Rosean ideals. Hiraeth Rose stands for its sovereignty and secularism, and any foreign country's influence, e.g., the Marche Noirs, or the influence of religious missionaries can be perpetuated in schools should this law be passed.

In our nation, alternative facts are not supported. In our nation, we educate our students with the best of humanity's knowledge and skills. Our nation is moving towards technological advancement, and thus we point out that it is our state schools that can provide our children with the best information that they require to thrive in the future world.

With these considerations, we would like to affirm that Hiraeth Rose is a firm supporter of quality education. We understand that the General Assembly is a diverse body, with many voices, and would like to be engaged in debate about our existing views. We look forward to any responses to our case.

[Consular]

Your first question is conspiratorial. There's no covert subversion.

The answer to the second question should be obvious -- class sizes, quality of teachers, electives, religious instruction, etc.

Now, do you plan to answer my questions?

No, I suppose you're right. The subversion isn't very covert at all.

I'm afraid it isn't particularly obvious to me. Our state schools provide an excellent standard of education. A private school would offer nothing we cannot, except perhaps teaching something we deliberately exclude from the curriculum.

As for your questions. It's really quite simple -- state education officials are qualified and experienced, and parents are not. Being a parent is not a professional skillset -- it does not give a person some kind of special knowledge. Generally speaking, the only necessary qualification for parenthood is the ability to actually give birth, not exactly a high standard really. Parents are unqualified to teach, and indeed unqualified to make decisions which dictate the education a child, even their child, receives.

Your magical idea that the "family" -- as truly nebulous as that concept is -- is somehow the best qualified to make incredibly important decisions that will affect our nation's future is ridiculous.

First, positive rights have negative aspects. The government should not force people to accept services that they don't want if they would prefer to choose a reasonable alternative. Second, the right to education is also a negative right -- the right to seek knowledge and impart knowledge without undue governmental interference.

And what if there are no reasonable alternatives? What if the proposed alternatives are manifestly inferior, and so in our view quite unreasonable?

I do not characterise the government enforcing a good standard of education as "undue governmental interference". Who is to set these standards, if not our government?

If all parties consent, people are generally free to settle their disputes outside of court. Also, there's a thing called alternative dispute resolution.

Yes both of these situations avoid the court though. If someone presses charges against you, you must defend yourself in a state court, not in your own homecourt or what have you.

See? We're rapidly reaching that point where I reiterate that rights are not directly comparable. They all have different contexts -- and limitations.

[Araraukar]

Is torture not the infliction of pain on someone without his consent (choice)?

Not according to WA:

1. ‘Torture’ is defined as an act of intentionally inflicting pain, severe discomfort or suffering on a person for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands from them or any other person, where committed with the approval or assistance of a government official or person acting in such capacity.

Merely inflicting pain on someone is not enough, it needs to be done for those specific purposes and committed with the approval of a government. Do also note that consent isn't mentioned.

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

Not what you are saying, though. What you are saying is that it's better to assist the children of the rich than to assist all children. If you truly wanted to assist all children, your resolution would be demanding funding and quality control of teachers and methods of teaching for public schools.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Not what you are saying, though. What you are saying is that it's better to assist the children of the rich than to assist all children.

OOC: I'm unclear on how you believe such a trade-off, i.e. that between resources for the rich and resources for all, exists in the resolution.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'm unclear on how you believe such a trade-off, i.e. that between resources for the rich and resources for all, exists in the resolution.

OOC: Edited it a bit to clarify what I meant.

[Christian Democrats]

Our state schools provide an excellent standard of education. A private school would offer nothing we cannot, except perhaps teaching something we deliberately exclude from the curriculum.

And what's wrong with children learning extra?

As for your questions. It's really quite simple -- state education officials are qualified and experienced, and parents are not. Being a parent is not a professional skillset -- it does not give a person some kind of special knowledge. Generally speaking, the only necessary qualification for parenthood is the ability to actually give birth, not exactly a high standard really. Parents are unqualified to teach, and indeed unqualified to make decisions which dictate the education a child, even their child, receives.

Your magical idea that the "family" -- as truly nebulous as that concept is -- is somehow the best qualified to make incredibly important decisions that will affect our nation's future is ridiculous.

All we recognize is that it's "ridiculous" to deny parents the right "to make incredibly important decisions that will affect [their children's] future." Children cannot decide for themselves, so others must decide for them. Parents are in the best position to decide by reason of their natural affection for their children, their direct knowledge of their children, and their presumptive interest in their children's welfare. It can hardly be maintained that the state has affection for individual children or direct knowledge of them, and the state's interest in the welfare of any individual child is very small compared to the interest of that child's father and mother.

First, positive rights have negative aspects. The government should not force people to accept services that they don't want if they would prefer to choose a reasonable alternative. Second, the right to education is also a negative right -- the right to seek knowledge and impart knowledge without undue governmental interference.

And what if there are no reasonable alternatives? What if the proposed alternatives are manifestly inferior, and so in our view quite unreasonable?

I do not characterise the government enforcing a good standard of education as "undue governmental interference". Who is to set these standards, if not our government?

We have not sought to deny the government the authority to set reasonable standards.

If all parties consent, people are generally free to settle their disputes outside of court. Also, there's a thing called alternative dispute resolution.

Yes both of these situations avoid the court though. If someone presses charges against you, you must defend yourself in a state court, not in your own homecourt or what have you.

You asked, "[D]o we allow citizens to choose a private court, or do they need to use the courts provided by the state?" I answered that "private courts" (alternative dispute resolution) are, in fact, a legitimate option.

Let's imagine that you had asked, "Do we allow citizens to choose a private school, or do they need to use the schools provided by the state?" I would have answered that private schools are, in fact, a legitimate option.

The point you're trying to make here doesn't make much sense. The best comparison, I suppose, would be a case where one parent wants the child to attend a public school and where the other parent wants the child to attend a private school.

[Evil Eagle]

All too often we have resolutions brought to this body that seek to manage the laws within a nation, rather than treaty between nations. Who do we think we are? While I support the ideal brought up in this resolution, I reject it's assumption of our power or place. Besides. If we pass this resolution, we will just have another to repeal it in a month, and that will pass also.

[Tzorsland]

Because, as I suspect you know, that would rather defeat the real purpose behind this resolution.

The interjection of subsidiarity in World Assembly resolutions?

[Tzorsland]

A lot of people here insist that their single one size fits all state approach is the best system possible. And how would they know? They are, in fact, morons, brainwashed by their education system to believe that their education system is the best system possible because that's the only way their pathetic education system can survive. Simply put, all monopolies suck since without competition it withers and dies. There are no exceptions.

Moreover, there is no such thing as a one size fits all solution to education. Some are visual learners. Some are audible learners. Then there is a complex matrix of attention span and optimal learning timelines which is different for each person. How can one single system handle it? It doesn't and everyone who doesn't fit the mold fall through the cracks and are personally blamed for their failures when it is in fact the system that has failed. (But the system insists it can never fail and it has the government monopoly to make that happen.)

To some the thought of a free market idea of education is scary. Effective systems often are.

This resolution will brash and burn. Why? Because you were all raised in a primitive brainwashing education system.
I will continue to not be in the WA as long as there continues to be morons like you all with your majorities and the great regions that insist on lowering the standards for everyone because they can't get past their own brainwashed notions of how government should be all things to all people.

Have a nice day.

[Westermire]

I am against the resolution for the following reasons:
1. It is morally unjust to allow certain students to have better chances at education than others simply because they are raised in an environment in which monetary issues are unheard of.
2. Private education is FOR-PROFIT. No matter what they say, these schools take the money from these families and use it for their self-gain. They can bend state curriculum and do whatever they want. If we are to ensure students are going to get a FAIR, DECENT, and EQUAL education, we must ABOLISH private education. Most of these schools are RELIGIOUS schools and they seek out children to manipulate. This cannot stand.
3. Independent education, i.e. homeschooling, is effective in most areas, and I would much rather vote for the resolution if it only included independent education as a choice, instead of private education. Independent education provides families with an incentive to allow their children to learn basic societal skills, as well as intellectual skills. I believe, with state-supported curriculums that must be followed, these students and their families can be far better off than even in public education.
4. I believe public education must receive an INFLUX of funding in EVERY nation. As seen in inner-city regions with a majority minority population, public schools are extremely underfunded and thus insufficient. These children receive little-to-no education and are not taught the basic skills they need to learn to be able to graduate and be a member of society. In turn, these children turn to crime and gangs because they are not provided an incentive to learn and strive for greater things, ultimately leading to the extreme racial tensions we see today.
As such, I negate this resolution.

[The Imperial States of Maryland]

I am against the resolution for the following reasons:
1. It is morally unjust to allow certain students to have better chances at education than others simply because they are raised in an environment in which monetary issues are unheard of.

So if some people won't be able to do something due to money, it should be illegal to do that thing?

[The Imperial States of Maryland]

2. Private education is FOR-PROFIT. No matter what they say, these schools take the money from these families and use it for their self-gain. They can bend state curriculum and do whatever they want. If we are to ensure students are going to get a FAIR, DECENT, and EQUAL education, we must ABOLISH private education. Most of these schools are RELIGIOUS schools and they seek out children to manipulate. This cannot stand.

You assume that "RELIGIOUS" schools are out to get children, but the children's guardians are sending them there. They can "bend the state curriculum" you say. That's okay in a free nation. Talk about manipulating children. A State curriculum can do that much more easily than a RELIGIOUS or PRIVATE school.

4. I believe public education must receive an INFLUX of funding in EVERY nation. As seen in inner-city regions with a majority minority population, public schools are extremely underfunded and thus insufficient. These children receive little-to-no education and are not taught the basic skills they need to learn to be able to graduate and be a member of society. In turn, these children turn to crime and gangs because they are not provided an incentive to learn and strive for greater things, ultimately leading to the extreme racial tensions we see today.

You seem to think that the proposal eliminates state education, but it doesn't! All it does is allow private school and homeschool. This should not be difficult to understand.

[Bongo Johnson]

The citizens of the Incorporated States of Bongo Johnson reject this proposal, on the grounds that mandatory standardized testing is an obsolete and inferior method of generating meaningful quantitative statistics on the quality of education provided by any type of school outlined therein. Standardized testing has been proven to be inconclusive data on the subject of how well schools are teaching their students, in part due to their one-off collection of scores and the psychological toll it takes on young children.

While we believe that children should be able to learn in the best possible environment for all, mandating the segregation of educational options is a decision better left to each nation. The General Assembly shall not impose choices on individual citizens under the guise of what is supposedly "good for all". This moral judgment should be delegated to the leaders in World Assembly member nations.

[Christian Democrats]

I am against the resolution for the following reasons:
1. It is morally unjust to allow certain students to have better chances at education than others simply because they are raised in an environment in which monetary issues are unheard of.

We disagree. It is morally unjust to deprive certain children of the opportunities available to them based on the backwards, envious belief that it is "not fair" for some individuals to have more opportunities than others. The solution is not to deprive certain children of their opportunities; it is to make such opportunities available to more children.

Imagine if we did this with healthcare, let's say. There's a new treatment for a rare form of cancer, and it costs $1 million out of pocket. Jane, a cancer patient, can afford this treatment. It will save her life. She tries to purchase the treatment, but the state intervenes and prevents it. A government official says, "It would be unfair to allow Jane access to a treatment that would keep her alive because not all citizens with this rare form of cancer can afford the treatment. Therefore, Jane must die for the sake of equality."

2. Private education is FOR-PROFIT. No matter what they say, these schools take the money from these families and use it for their self-gain. They can bend state curriculum and do whatever they want. If we are to ensure students are going to get a FAIR, DECENT, and EQUAL education, we must ABOLISH private education. Most of these schools are RELIGIOUS schools and they seek out children to manipulate. This cannot stand.

Do you have any proof for these claims? What if parents want an education for their child that is better than "fair" or "decent"?

4. I believe public education must receive an INFLUX of funding in EVERY nation. As seen in inner-city regions with a majority minority population, public schools are extremely underfunded and thus insufficient. These children receive little-to-no education and are not taught the basic skills they need to learn to be able to graduate and be a member of society. In turn, these children turn to crime and gangs because they are not provided an incentive to learn and strive for greater things, ultimately leading to the extreme racial tensions we see today.

So, in your view, the solution to poor public education in the "inner-city regions" is to ban alternatives?

The citizens of the Incorporated States of Bongo Johnson reject this proposal, on the grounds that mandatory standardized testing is an obsolete and inferior method of generating meaningful quantitative statistics on the quality of education provided by any type of school outlined therein. Standardized testing has been proven to be inconclusive data on the subject of how well schools are teaching their students, in part due to their one-off collection of scores and the psychological toll it takes on young children.

We've read this proposal several times, having written it. Which section is the "mandatory standardized testing" section?

[Tengoto]

The citizens of the Incorporated States of Bongo Johnson reject this proposal, on the grounds that mandatory standardized testing is an obsolete and inferior method of generating meaningful quantitative statistics on the quality of education provided by any type of school outlined therein. Standardized testing has been proven to be inconclusive data on the subject of how well schools are teaching their students, in part due to their one-off collection of scores and the psychological toll it takes on young children.

We've read this proposal several times, having written it. Which section is the "mandatory standardized testing" section?

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;

Most likely referring to this.

[Christian Democrats]

We've read this proposal several times, having written it. Which section is the "mandatory standardized testing" section?

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;

Most likely referring to this.

Which isn't mandatory.

[Consular]

Our state schools provide an excellent standard of education. A private school would offer nothing we cannot, except perhaps teaching something we deliberately exclude from the curriculum.

And what's wrong with children learning extra?

Perhaps you missed the words "deliberately excluded".

All we recognize is that it's "ridiculous" to deny parents the right "to make incredibly important decisions that will affect [their children's] future." Children cannot decide for themselves, so others must decide for them. Parents are in the best position to decide by reason of their natural affection for their children, their direct knowledge of their children, and their presumptive interest in their children's welfare. It can hardly be maintained that the state has affection for individual children or direct knowledge of them, and the state's interest in the welfare of any individual child is very small compared to the interest of that child's father and mother.

You have a utopian and thoroughly unrealistic view of the family.

Not all children have parents who will make wise decisions. So it is best for the children that very important decisions, like education, are controlled by the nation.

And what if there are no reasonable alternatives? What if the proposed alternatives are manifestly inferior, and so in our view quite unreasonable?

I do not characterise the government enforcing a good standard of education as "undue governmental interference". Who is to set these standards, if not our government?

We have not sought to deny the government the authority to set reasonable standards.

What we are saying is that private schools and homeschooling offer a worse standard than our national system -- and so they are unreasonable choices, because it is unreasonable in our view to choose a worse option for no rational reason.

[Christian Democrats]

You have a utopian and thoroughly unrealistic view of the family.

You have a utopian and thoroughly unrealistic view of the state.

[Consular]

You're one of those people who curiously fear their own government, aren't you, ambassador?

[Libertarian North America]

You're one of those people who curiously fear their own government, aren't you, ambassador?

Any body of authority should be actively questioned and scrutinized. Just as many are suspicious of the private sector, so too should they be suspicious of the public sector.

Perhaps this is the same philosophy the ambassador follows.

[Christian Democrats]

You're one of those people who curiously fear their own government, aren't you, ambassador?

I'm one of those people who generally trusts civil society more than the state -- who generally trusts individuals and families to make better decisions concerning their own lives than faceless bureaucrats or legislators living hundreds of miles away.

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

And what's wrong with children learning extra?

Perhaps you missed the words "deliberately excluded".

Or perhaps the Ambassador lacks the insight to understand that some countries have both state education and non-state education options. And that in some of those non-state education options some of the items included in non-state education that are excluded from state education would include such things as religious instruction.

I will give an example from Dragonslund. In Dragonslund we have state provided education which is completely secular in accordance with His Majesty's decrees regarding religious freedom and toleration. However, some religious bodies do operate schools, these non-state schools can and do provide courses in the religious teachings of the organization which sponsors them.

We have voted for the resolution, because our country is doing this already, as our funding system follows the student. Each year the parent(s) of every school aged child (6-14 years in our case) is provided with an allowance per child to provide for their instruction. Some parents choose to send their children to state schools using the funds for tutors and so forth, some use it to send their children to non-state secular schools, and some choose to send their children to non-state religious schools.

It is our experience that competition in education, like other areas, generally improves outcomes.

[Templar Republic]

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.

[Consular]

would include such things as religious instruction.

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

[Zawikhiztan]

Does this tread mean poor families still need to pay for the needs of the children because in Zawikhiztan we give school supplies for free?