Advertisement
by Nova Nacio » Mon May 29, 2017 4:59 am
by Covenstone » Mon May 29, 2017 7:11 am
Templar Republic wrote:Your Excellencies,
We are going to vote against this resolution for the following reasons :
1/ The definition of Non-state schoolis too broad : we want to be able to restrict the possibility for non-profit organizationsa primary or secondary school that is owned and operated by the private sector
2/ We completely disagree with statement 5Forbids 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.
by Noraika » Mon May 29, 2017 8:16 am
Covenstone wrote: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?
LOVEWHOYOUARE~TRANS⚧EQUALITY~~ Economic Left -9.38 | Social Libertarian -2.77 ~
~ 93 Equality - 36 Liberty - 50 Stability ~Democratic Socialism ● Egalitarianism ● Feminism ● LGBT+ rights ● Monarchism ● Social Justice ● Souverainism ● StatismPronouns: She/Her ♀️⛦ Pagan and proud! ⛦⚧Gender and sex aren't the same thing!⚧
by Dragonslinding WA Mission » Mon May 29, 2017 8:50 am
by Dragonslinding WA Mission » Mon May 29, 2017 9:37 am
Noraika wrote: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.
by Become » Mon May 29, 2017 12:51 pm
by Covenstone » Mon May 29, 2017 4:19 pm
Noraika wrote:Covenstone wrote: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.
by Kahanistan » Mon May 29, 2017 6:37 pm
by DogeSolo » Mon May 29, 2017 7:57 pm
by Covenstone » Tue May 30, 2017 9:01 am
by Libertarian North America » Tue May 30, 2017 9:24 am
Covenstone wrote:I've never watched such an adventurous and progressive vote die in real time before. It was not a happy thing to watch
by Vandario » Tue May 30, 2017 10:15 am
Covenstone wrote:I've never watched such an adventurous and progressive vote die in real time before. It was not a happy thing to watch
by Cemberia » Tue May 30, 2017 11:01 am
by Covenstone » Tue May 30, 2017 11:40 am
by Dragonslinding WA Mission » Tue May 30, 2017 12:11 pm
by Covenstone » Tue May 30, 2017 12:48 pm
Dragonslinding WA Mission wrote: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.
by Vandario » Tue May 30, 2017 1:06 pm
Covenstone wrote:Dragonslinding WA Mission wrote: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.
by Covenstone » Tue May 30, 2017 1:14 pm
Vandario wrote:Covenstone wrote:
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.
by Vandario » Tue May 30, 2017 1:24 pm
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.
by Dragonslinding WA Mission » Tue May 30, 2017 1:43 pm
Covenstone wrote:Dragonslinding WA Mission wrote: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.
by Templar Republic » Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:48 am
Covenstone wrote:Templar Republic wrote: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?
by Attempted Socialism » Mon Jun 05, 2017 3:49 pm
Covenstone wrote:I've never watched such an adventurous and progressive vote die in real time before. It was not a happy thing to watch
Covenstone wrote: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.
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Fachumonn
Advertisement