NationStates

---

IC: Please take up your quibbles with Emma Donovan ("Who says there aren't any born-again evangelicals around here?"), the 18-year-old winner of the 4th Willis Prize, an essay competition offering those in the final year of school an opportunity to intern with Tinhampton's WA Delegation. For all intents and purposes, imagine we're three months ahead of the OOC real world in the Tinhamptonian calendar.

Pedagogical Freedom
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Educational and Creativity

Area of Effect: Educational

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Believing that it ought to promote the right of parents to direct their children's education (rather than hindering it, i.e. by requiring homeschoolers to seek teacher supervision or completely outlawing homeschooling), the General Assembly resolves, with immediate effect, that:

1. Subject to prior and standing international law, member states and their political subdivisions ("members") must respect, in law and in practice:
   
   1. 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
   2. the right of children to receive a full-time education which is adequate and appropriate to their age and ability.
2. Members are strongly urged to respect the right of adults to receive an education as described in Article a(ii).
3. This Compact must not be interpreted to necessarily require members to fully fund or partially subsidise schools; those judgments are reserved to the individual member states.
4. This Compact must not be interpreted to forbid members from requiring parents to enrol their children into a school, provided that they have a reasonable belief that those parents have failed to guarantee that their children receive an education as described in Article a(ii).

"You may wish to affix to clause a.i. "subject to previous, extant World Assembly legislation", to clarify that you don't intend any "sincerely-held moral beliefs" to take precedence over fundamental educational requirements such as those of GAR #80."

Maowi wrote:"You may wish to affix to clause a.i. "subject to previous, extant World Assembly legislation", to clarify that you don't intend any "sincerely-held moral beliefs" to take precedence over fundamental educational requirements such as those of GAR #80."

Emma Donovan: Erm... ooo-er, to the important somebody over there, such a clause had already been affixed immediately before the operative clauses: "The General Assembly [r]esolves, with immediate effect and subject to prior and standing international law, that..." and so it carries on. Is your concern here vagueness of the subjectivity clause, or is it where it is located?

Tinhampton wrote:

Maowi wrote:"You may wish to affix to clause a.i. "subject to previous, extant World Assembly legislation", to clarify that you don't intend any "sincerely-held moral beliefs" to take precedence over fundamental educational requirements such as those of GAR #80."

Emma Donovan: Erm... ooo-er, to the important somebody over there, such a clause had already been affixed immediately before the operative clauses: "The General Assembly [r]esolves, with immediate effect and subject to prior and standing international law, that..." and so it carries on. Is your concern here vagueness of the subjectivity clause, or is it where it is located?

Feargal wipes his glasses sheepishly. "My apologies, ambassador. Perhaps I should get back into the habit of ... reading ... words. That being said, it does appear to me that extant World Assembly legislation could be better integrated into the proposal (without, of course, relying on it to function). In addition to the qualifier in the "resolves" clause, clause a.ii. could benefit from an addition of the phrase "and fulfills the requirements set by prior and standing international law", or words to that effect, not for that clause in itself but so that clause d. does not put member nations in the difficult position of having to enforce compliance with World Assembly law without being able to take the child's education into their own hands."

You have my full support on this.

Donovan: Following some discussion with my colleagues, I have decided to adopt the Maowese amendment in principle. This proposal remains in drafting, with a few changes to the preamble and a slightly shorter title.

OOC 1: title was "Pedagogical Freedoms Compact."
OOC 2: At least in England, homeschoolers are not bound by the National Curriculum - which might partially explain this hesitance =P

What an awful resolution. Against.

"Ambassador, the 'rights' this draft seeks to 'protect', do not exist, and are entirely at-odds with civilized society. It is not the place of a child's parents to 'direct' their education; that is best done by experts in the education and in those fields which are being studied. No parent has any 'right' to deny their children a proper education.

And, moreover, we find the idea that it is the place of parents to 'guarantee' education... absurd. If your Government is incapable of providing its citizens with educational facilities, that is your failing; we will not have this absurdity exported by force. The Imperium guarantees the education of our citizens; it is their absolute right."

Tinhampton wrote:

This proposal has been submitted to the General Assembly Education and Creativity Board.

---

Character count: 1,334
Word count: 204

IC: Please take up your quibbles with Emma Donovan ("Who says there aren't any born-again evangelicals around here?"), the 18-year-old winner of the 4th Willis Prize, an essay competition offering those in the final year of school an opportunity to intern with Tinhampton's WA Delegation. For all intents and purposes, imagine we're three months ahead of the OOC real world in the Tinhamptonian calendar.

(Image)
Pedagogical Freedom
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Educational and Creativity

Area of Effect: Educational

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Believing that it ought to promote the right of parents to direct their children's education (rather than hindering it, i.e. by requiring homeschoolers to seek teacher supervision or completely outlawing homeschooling), the General Assembly resolves, with immediate effect, that:

1. Subject to prior and standing international law, member states and their political subdivisions ("members") must respect, in law and in practice:
   
   1. 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
   2. the right of children to receive a full-time education which is adequate and appropriate to their age and ability.
2. Members are strongly urged to respect the right of adults to receive an education as described in Article a(ii).
3. This Compact must not be interpreted to necessarily require members to fully fund or partially subsidise schools; those judgments are reserved to the individual member states.
4. This Compact must not be interpreted to forbid members from requiring parents to enrol their children into a school, provided that they have a reasonable belief that those parents have failed to guarantee that their children receive an education as described in Article a(ii).

Strong, unequivocal against.

"Parents whose 'moral beliefs' are decidedly anti-ethical or anti-scientific do not need those 'beliefs' protected; rather, the right of the child to a proper education needs protection. Parents who cannot indoctrinate adults into their beliefs should not procreate to get young victims they have total control over. That is reprehensible. There is nothing redeemable in this resolution, and we sincerely hope the relevant Tinhamptonian staffers are sacked."

“Strongly against. We oppose the indoctrination of children by fanatical parents.”

“I’m not sure that I can support this. Although the idea looks good in theory, I don’t see how this could work in actuality, due to the concerns raised by the delegation from Attempted Socialism. I do acknowledge clause d as a potential counterargument, but feel that this serves to complicate the mandates rather than address this problem.”

How does this even boost education budgets?

Araraukar wrote:"So what happens if a parent's "moral conviction" is that women should not get an education - presumably to make them controllable somehow - and that contradicts the female child's right to education?"

Donovan: If the girl child's right to education is understood to be substantially violated or not provided at all, that would virtually always constitute "a reasonable belief" on behalf of the state that she ought to attend regular schooling.
In regards to what Miss... erm, MacBeth and Lewitt were saying earlier, "the right of the child to a proper education" does get protection through Article a(ii). I wish to remind all of you that the rights in Article a are only protected "subject to prior and standing international law," which does requires homeschoolers to meet the same International Curriculum requirements surrounding a basic education, reproductive education and the natural sciences as regular teachers.

AS OF 2155 BST ON THURSDAY: Approvals: 64 out of 63 needed (Tinhampton, One Small Island, The Palentine, North American Imperial State, Smiley Bob, SFR Philippines, Kor Pantaal, Greater Penrith, Xukong, Cantanasia Objective, Octal, Gumeus, Otaku Stratus, The Antartic Legion, Vedenmark, The Democratic Nation of Unovia, Mikeswill, Bettisia, Ashtie, United Gunland, Dabberwocky, Lacmhacarh, Northern Bucovina, Seven Seas, Plus Nova Imperii, Zentata, Theberstan, The Age of Utopia, Central Protectorate of Alkoholi, Veritatimia, Islands Of Ventro, GoodKingWenceslas, LuckyLippers, Horden, Omniabstracta, New Skandenivia, South Krimelski, Franche Comte, Clytrat, Baccalieu, Sedgistan, People of Phoenix, Folgoria, Candensia, Kustonia, Willtechia, Aredita, Birnir, Ashaie, Belkom, Thembria SSR, Silver-Tree, Therlica, Ameiriqua, Gran Serenissima, Greenkeep, Denathor, Alcycone, AMERICA EUROPE AND SOUTH ASIA, Goathland, Greater Venova, Goth Cowboys, Russia Major, Zombiedolphins)

Honeydewistania wrote:How does this even boost education budgets?

OOC: I don't see that it does. That would indicate a category violation. I think a challenge should be issued.

Tinhampton wrote:

Araraukar wrote:"So what happens if a parent's "moral conviction" is that women should not get an education - presumably to make them controllable somehow - and that contradicts the female child's right to education?"

Donovan: If the girl child's right to education is understood to be substantially violated or not provided at all, that would virtually always constitute "a reasonable belief" on behalf of the state that she ought to attend regular schooling.
In regards to what Miss... erm, MacBeth and Lewitt were saying earlier, "the right of the child to a proper education" does get protection through Article a(ii). I wish to remind all of you that the rights in Article a are only protected "subject to prior and standing international law," which does requires homeschoolers to meet the same International Curriculum requirements surrounding a basic education, reproductive education and the natural sciences as regular teachers.

"You are either disingenuous or shooting your own proposal in the foot. Since homeschoolers cannot provide the same basic education, and since their amoral beliefs are what induces them to victimise their children -- such as the mindnumbing practise of childhood religion -- a(ii) is either the loophole to still have homeschooling outlawed or it does not work as advertsied. It cannot do both. The lack of proper drafting is showing."

Donovan: Resolution number eighty requires that particular subjects be taught to "all citizens," without specifying how and regardless of whether they are being homeschooled or taught in a regular school. Resolution three-hundred and sixty-nine requires that reproductive education be taught in all "general education service[s]," a definition which I am fairly confident a homeschool would fall under. Please can anybody in this chamber explain to me how these requirements can never be met in homeschooling but are invariably complied with in all normal schools, regardless of the quality of education or behaviour of pupils in either setting?

Donovan: My challenge to all delegates in relation to the alleged insufficiency of homeschooling remains. This proposal will shortly--in about twenty minutes, this is going to come to vote for four days.

AS OF 0440 BST ON SUNDAY: Approvals: 68 out of 62 needed (Tinhampton, One Small Island, The Palentine, North American Imperial State, Smiley Bob, SFR Philippines, Kor Pantaal, Greater Penrith, Xukong, Cantanasia Objective, Octal, Gumeus, Otaku Stratus, The Antartic Legion, The Democratic Nation of Unovia, Mikeswill, Bettisia, Ashtie, United Gunland, Dabberwocky, Lacmhacarh, Northern Bucovina, Seven Seas, Plus Nova Imperii, Zentata, Theberstan, Central Protectorate of Alkoholi, Veritatimia, Islands Of Ventro, GoodKingWenceslas, LuckyLippers, Horden, Omniabstracta, New Skandenivia, South Krimelski, Franche Comte, Clytrat, Baccalieu, Sedgistan, People of Phoenix, Folgoria, Candensia, Kustonia, Willtechia, Aredita, Birnir, Ashaie, Belkom, Thembria SSR, Silver-Tree, Therlica, Ameiriqua, Gran Serenissima, Greenkeep, Denathor, Alcycone, AMERICA EUROPE AND SOUTH ASIA, Goathland, Greater Venova, Goth Cowboys, Russia Major, Zombiedolphins, Libonesia, Indusse, Northwestern Munster, Madison and Wisconsin, Furret Cult, Panther)

Ngl kinda sucks if I wanted children to be influenced by their wonky parents I would vote for this.

Strongly support this measure.

The WAA Ministry in The East Pacific has issued a recommendation against this resolution to our WA members.

I’m struggling to understand Article D.

This Compact must not be interpreted to forbid members from requiring parents to enrol their children into a school, provided that they have a reasonable belief that those parents have failed to guarantee that their children receive an education as described in Article a(ii).

Can someone break it down for me?

Havl wrote:I’m struggling to understand Article D.

This Compact must not be interpreted to forbid members from requiring parents to enrol their children into a school, provided that they have a reasonable belief that those parents have failed to guarantee that their children receive an education as described in Article a(ii).

Can someone break it down for me?

It says that member nations are allowed to force parents to enrol their children’s in a public school if they believe that the parent does not provide an adequate education.

Havl wrote:I’m struggling to understand Article D.

This Compact must not be interpreted to forbid members from requiring parents to enrol their children into a school, provided that they have a reasonable belief that those parents have failed to guarantee that their children receive an education as described in Article a(ii).

Can someone break it down for me?

Honeydewistania is broadly correct. A further explanation: Generally, Article a(i) would allow the homeschooling (or unschooling etc.) of children, in allowing parents "to direct and guarantee, with regard to their sincerely-held moral beliefs, the education of their children." This right is qualified by Article a(ii), which requires that children "receive a full-time education which is adequate and appropriate [...]" - which itself must, by definition, fulfil the requirements set out in prior and standing GA law.

If there exists reasonable suspicion that a child in a member state is not in receipt of such an "adequate and appropriate" "full-time" education (i.e. if such an education is not in compliance with the aforementioned GA legislation), then the state may require that child to cease being homeschooled and instead be enrolled into a regular school.

---

Refuge Isle wrote:The WAA Ministry in The East Pacific has issued a recommendation against this resolution to our WA members.

The rights in Article a are "[s]ubject to prior and standing international law" which all member states must already comply with - especially including GA#80, GA#369 (although I would assume that a homeschool is already a general education service for the purpose of the latter), and GA#475 (assuming a broad reading of Article 1a). Why does TEP's MoWAA believe that this resolution would leave "the state" unable to "impose reasonable education standards" when it would in fact bind homeschoolers to the same International Curriculum requirements, as aforementioned, as those in regular schools?

Tinhampton wrote:Why does TEP's MoWAA believe that this resolution would leave "the state" unable to "impose reasonable education standards" when it would in fact bind homeschoolers to the same International Curriculum requirements, as aforementioned, as those in regular schools?

Were that the intention of your resolution, I suspect that it would show strong promise on the floor, but this is not the case and the status of the vote reflects this. The WAA Ministry does not find that moral beliefs should have an impact in academic curriculum. Although the text of the resolution demands the right to an education appropriate to age and ability, it speaks nothing to the accuracy of the content. You're intentionally binding the hands of the state when parents find the teaching of certain facts objectionable.