[DEFEATED] Pedagogical Freedom

[Dirty Americans]

"And so it should be for all aspects of child-rearing. Indeed, why should I send my child to a grey faced goon in a medical office when I know full well that a tablespoon of honey will cure my child's fever. Who knows better than I how to care for my child's health? Why, he's not even sick right now. What a myth vaccines are."

"That's a very sloppy argument. (Note that local honey can actually cure local allergies because the honey wraps the proteins in such a way as to be almost equivalent to the allergic equivalent to a vaccine, but that is a completely different topic.) No one is talking here about teaching pseudo-science or false facts. If we are specifically talking about moral positions, then this is not a case where there is one 'right' side and one 'wrong' side. Now there is the question of whether or not participating in a moral evil, even if the immediate ends are for a moral good, is a proper action, but again, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand."

[Rothnia]

As the leader of a communist nation, I cannot vote for this. Only the state may educate our children.

[Tinhampton]

What is this proposal? How did it make it to quorum? Voting against due to the myriad of flaws.

I will publicise my campaign telegram here, in the interests of transparency:

Greetings, Delegate. I am writing to you today to urge you to approve Pedagogical Freedom (NB: pedagogy is the study of methods of teaching).

The proposal's main goal is to ensure that parents throughout the World Assembly may direct their children's education in accordance with their sincere moral beliefs. None of the other 300 or so standing GA resolutions explicitly allow parents to freely choose whether to homeschool/unschool their children, to send them to a state school or to a private school.

It also requires member states to protect the right of all children to receive a suitable, age-appropriate, and stretching full-time education that meets the requirements of prior WA legislation. However, members have leeway to require parents to enrol their children into a traditional school if they reasonably believe that those children are not receiving such a full-time education.

There have been serious GA proposals in recent months to impose onerous regulations on homeschooling, or even to forbid it entirely in favour of state schooling. On the other hand, there are proposals that, if passed, could once and for all allow parents to choose the method of full-time education that is best for their children - and you could bring us one step closer to that vision today by simply approving Pedagogical Freedom.

Thank you,
Tinhampton

[Mendevia]

So I see that this bill is being clobbered in the votes, but if it is ever reintroduced then I would suggest a correction in section d. The correct spelling is enroll, not enrol. Children are our future and I believe teaching them proper spelling would improve that future.

“Enrol” is an accepted spelling.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enrol

Not in any dictionary that I've seen. In addition there are a few other grammatical errors in the legislation, but I felt like being nice.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Switched my vote to for because of this nonsense about enrol. America is not the world folks.

[Refuge Isle]

“Enrol” is an accepted spelling.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enrol

Not in any dictionary that I've seen. In addition there are a few other grammatical errors in the legislation, but I felt like being nice.

Alternative dialects of English are valid ones: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... lish/enrol

[Havl]

“Enrol” is an accepted spelling.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enrol

Not in any dictionary that I've seen. In addition there are a few other grammatical errors in the legislation, but I felt like being nice.

Is the Merriam Webster dictionary in my link too obscure?

[Great Robertia]

"As opposed to the nanny-state government determining what is good for children? Why should some grey bureaucrat know more about what is best for a child than its own parents? Unless the parents are physically abusing or neglecting the child, the state should not intervene."

"Do parents have access to researchers and professionals in the field of education? No, they do not, as opposed to the national government, or more specifically, each respective Ministry of Education or a nation's equivalent thereof. They can employ the experts who know what form of education will benefit the child the most. Those experts can then help the Ministry form the appropriate curriculum. This is a system designed and based upon knowledge, research and study. Parents too often base their views, such as on education, on uninformed, highly subjective gut feelings.

This is why I oppose this resolution. Let expertise dictate how a child's education should look like, not ignorance, religion or subjectivity."

[Outer Sparta]

What is this proposal? How did it make it to quorum? Voting against due to the myriad of flaws.

I will publicise my campaign telegram here, in the interests of transparency:

Greetings, Delegate. I am writing to you today to urge you to approve Pedagogical Freedom (NB: pedagogy is the study of methods of teaching).

The proposal's main goal is to ensure that parents throughout the World Assembly may direct their children's education in accordance with their sincere moral beliefs. None of the other 300 or so standing GA resolutions explicitly allow parents to freely choose whether to homeschool/unschool their children, to send them to a state school or to a private school.

It also requires member states to protect the right of all children to receive a suitable, age-appropriate, and stretching full-time education that meets the requirements of prior WA legislation. However, members have leeway to require parents to enrol their children into a traditional school if they reasonably believe that those children are not receiving such a full-time education.

There have been serious GA proposals in recent months to impose onerous regulations on homeschooling, or even to forbid it entirely in favour of state schooling. On the other hand, there are proposals that, if passed, could once and for all allow parents to choose the method of full-time education that is best for their children - and you could bring us one step closer to that vision today by simply approving Pedagogical Freedom.

Thank you,
Tinhampton

Nope not changing my mind at all.

[Kenmoria]

“I will be voting against this proposal, for reasons summarised in the recently IFV published by the Europe government.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

Enrol is the correct spelling in English.

[Mendevia]

Enrol is the correct spelling in English.

After reading everyone's comments and sources I do apologize. Sometimes I forget that British English is different then what we speak here. Still though if you look at the link you provided and choose case insensitive and English overall as opposed to just British English you'll see that enroll is far more commonly used. The word has had two of the letter l since Old French, but languages evolve and dialects emerge so I will concede. I am not here to fight with anyone.

[Tinhampton]

“I will be voting against this proposal, for reasons summarised in the recently IFV published by the Europe government.”

PRESUMED OOC: Using a single verse from the Bible to draw conclusions about all of Christian morality would get you confused at best or laughed out of any well-meaning Bible study group at worst. Why, then, has IA used a single ECtHR case (and preceding domestic ruling) about the legality of homeschooling in one country to draw conclusions about whether or not homeschooling should be legalised in any of the WA's 22.5k member states?

[South St Maarten]

IC: Regarding the following section:

the right of parents, carers and guardians ("parents") of children to direct and guarantee, with regard to their sincerely-held moral beliefs, the education of their children, and

The laws of the Constitutional Monarchy of South St Maarten regulate education and do not allow parents to direct the education of their children, and, in wishing to uphold such laws, South St Maarten must vote against.

[Kenmoria]

“I will be voting against this proposal, for reasons summarised in the recently IFV published by the Europe government.”

PRESUMED OOC: Using a single verse from the Bible to draw conclusions about all of Christian morality would get you confused at best or laughed out of any well-meaning Bible study group at worst. Why, then, has IA used a single ECtHR case (and preceding domestic ruling) about the legality of homeschooling in one country to draw conclusions about whether or not homeschooling should be legalised in any of the WA's 22.5k member states?

(OOC: I’ve checked on the Discord, and that section of the legal decision, though it was directed towards German schools, applies to homeschooling as a concept. Therefore, it can be used as a judgement for any decisions around the legality of teaching from home.)

[Honeydewistania]

"Great Robertia votes against this proposal. While parents want what's best for their children, what the parents envision as the most beneficial for their offspring is not always what's actually best for the child. When it comes to education, parents rarely are a knowledgeable authority on this topic to make a qualified decision of this scale. A child's education is a child's future. Allowing parents to cripple this start because of well-intended, but misguided views is a detriment to every child's future. This proposal would enable that to happen, and as such will not receive our support."

"As opposed to the nanny-state government determining what is good for children? Why should some grey bureaucrat know more about what is best for a child than its own parents? Unless the parents are physically abusing or neglecting the child, the state should not intervene."

I’d be careful with such language, since that’s rhetoric spewed out by anti vaxxers.

[Nemohsis]

"As opposed to the nanny-state government determining what is good for children? Why should some grey bureaucrat know more about what is best for a child than its own parents? Unless the parents are physically abusing or neglecting the child, the state should not intervene."

I’d be careful with such language, since that’s rhetoric spewed out by anti vaxxers.

nah anti vaxxers are neglecting their child though so you just redefine

[Chairman Cities]

I Was Asked To Vote On Such Proposal And I Knew It Wouldn't Pass Once It Reached The W.A. Masses I Hate To Be The One Say
I Told You So But ". "

[Toneor]

Why, then, has IA used a single ECtHR case (and preceding domestic ruling) about the legality of homeschooling in one country to draw conclusions about whether or not homeschooling should be legalised in any of the WA's 22.5k member states?

"Legalize" is ambiguous here. To be clear, the resolution does not permit member nations to legalize homeschooling. Any member state may already do that. It requires them to legalize it.

Or perhaps it doesn't. Section a.i requires that states permit homeschooling whenever the parents want it. a.ii and d permit the state to override a.i, but based on rather ill-defined criteria. If "adequate and appropriate" are interpreted narrowly, the resolution requires that homeschooling be permitted even if it provides a worse education than the child would get in a normal school. If the phrase is instead interpreted broadly, the government can permit or prohibit homeschooling based on criteria of its own choosing, and the resolution doesn't actually do anything.

[Havl]

Enrol is the correct spelling in English.

After reading everyone's comments and sources I do apologize. Sometimes I forget that British English is different then what we speak here. Still though if you look at the link you provided and choose case insensitive and English overall as opposed to just British English you'll see that enroll is far more commonly used. The word has had two of the letter l since Old French, but languages evolve and dialects emerge so I will concede. I am not here to fight with anyone.

Thanks for acknowledging that. I appreciate it.

[Tinhampton]

PRESUMED OOC: Using a single verse from the Bible to draw conclusions about all of Christian morality would get you confused at best or laughed out of any well-meaning Bible study group at worst. Why, then, has IA used a single ECtHR case (and preceding domestic ruling) about the legality of homeschooling in one country to draw conclusions about whether or not homeschooling should be legalised in any of the WA's 22.5k member states?

(OOC: I’ve checked on the Discord, and that section of the legal decision, though it was directed towards German schools, applies to homeschooling as a concept. Therefore, it can be used as a judgement for any decisions around the legality of teaching from home.)

ECtHR also stated in the Konrad decision that "there appears to be no consensus among the Contracting States [viz. to the ECHR] with regard to compulsory attendance of primary schools. While some countries permit home education, other States provide for compulsory attendance of State or private schools." Nor did the Court require all contracting parties to immediately outlaw homeschooling: it simply clarified that Germany was within its "margin of appreciation in setting up and interpreting rules" for its domestic schooling system. Where do you take away from the above that Konrad "can be used as a judgement for any decisions around the legality of" homeschooling (emphasis added)?

...If "adequate and appropriate" are interpreted narrowly, the resolution requires that homeschooling be permitted even if it provides a worse education than the child would get in a normal school. If the phrase is instead interpreted broadly, the government can permit or prohibit homeschooling based on criteria of its own choosing, and the resolution doesn't actually do anything.

This proposal neither encourages "a worse education" in homeschools, nor does it do nothing: Homeschoolers are, in fact, required to follow the same core curriculum as students in regular schools.

[Typica]

...If "adequate and appropriate" are interpreted narrowly, the resolution requires that homeschooling be permitted even if it provides a worse education than the child would get in a normal school. If the phrase is instead interpreted broadly, the government can permit or prohibit homeschooling based on criteria of its own choosing, and the resolution doesn't actually do anything.

This proposal neither encourages "a worse education" in homeschools, nor does it do nothing: Homeschoolers are, in fact, required to follow the same core curriculum as students in regular schools.

If that's true what purpose remains for this resolution? Does the WA really need a resolution to guarantee the right of parents and kids to spend time with each other?

[Imperium Anglorum]

ECtHR also stated in the Konrad decision that "there appears to be no consensus among the Contracting States [viz. to the ECHR] with regard to compulsory attendance of primary schools. While some countries permit home education, other States provide for compulsory attendance of State or private schools." Nor did the Court require all contracting parties to immediately outlaw homeschooling: it simply clarified that Germany was within its "margin of appreciation in setting up and interpreting rules" for its domestic schooling system. Where do you take away from the above that Konrad "can be used as a judgement for any decisions around the legality of" homeschooling (emphasis added)?

A few notes. First, the provision you quoted supports the contention that existing practice does not require the legalisation of home schooling. Insofar as we have reasons to believe the decisions of the 'contracting states' are reasonable and rational writ large, this cuts against your proposed forcible legalisation of home schooling. Second, the text which I quoted have nothing to do with the main holding that Germany should be given room to determine for itself the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights. The text that I quoted actually is a restatement of the policy arguments given as to why Germany's home schooling laws do not fail something akin to a rational basis test, with articulation as to what that rational basis is.

The rational basis is that (as I wrote in Europe's WA Office opinion):

Society writ large has a 'general interest... in avoiding the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions' and has legitimate goals in 'integrating minorities into society' as a whole. Konrad and others v Germany, App. no. 35504/03, Eur Ct HR (2006), 7.

The statement of that rational basis directly cross applies as an argument against the resolution; the rational basis is something argued as a good thing which is mutually exclusive with the forced legalisation of home schooling. That mutual exclusivity implies a loss of amenity for society writ large. Weighing is needed adjudicate these harms against the benefits asserted by the resolution. Again quoting from Konrad, my opinion then states:

Outside the scope of compulsory schooling, it is also important to mention that the ability for a parent to direct their children is not prohibited by compulsory school attendance, as the resolution's preamble would have you believe. "Parent's right to educate their children would not be undermined by compulsory school attendance as the parents could educate their children before and after school, as well as at weekends". Ibid, 2.

This is an argument against the assertion of proposal benefits in the preamble of the proposal. Insofar as we believe that small benefits should not be taken in exchange for large harms (see warranting in Euro WA Office opinion para 2), the calculus falls towards opposition. This warranting and weighing is not difficult to understand.

[JC Cavs]

"Great Robertia votes against this proposal. While parents want what's best for their children, what the parents envision as the most beneficial for their offspring is not always what's actually best for the child. When it comes to education, parents rarely are a knowledgeable authority on this topic to make a qualified decision of this scale. A child's education is a child's future. Allowing parents to cripple this start because of well-intended, but misguided views is a detriment to every child's future. This proposal would enable that to happen, and as such will not receive our support."

I completely agree. Education is a child’s future and is highly beneficial for helping individuals become independent citizens in society. While many parents believe they know what is best for their child, some parents fail to recognize what their child truly wants. If this law were to pass, many youth voices’ would be silenced due to their parents’ abilities to dictate their education. For this reason, parents should not have the ultimate decision of education for their children, as it should be up to the state until a child reaches a mature age to decide their own educational path.

[Tinhampton]

"Pedagogical Freedom" was defeated 13,879 votes to 1,685.

With 10.83% support, this is the least popular GA resolution since Treatment of the Deceased in August 2019. Regardless, I would like to thank everybody here for their support - and, of course, the much more prevalent and well-reasoned opposition - and do not believe that the fight for school choice in the General Assembly ends here.