UNESCO downgrades the role of parents

 

Parents have long been regarded as the primary educators of their children. This is recognised in some of the foundational human rights documents of the post-World War 2 world. But a new UNESCO document now demotes parents to the role of children’s ‘first educators’ and promotes the role of other bodies in the educating and raising of small, pre-school children.

In November, UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) published their ‘Draft Guiding Principles on the Right to Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE)’.

This draft document provides guidance for governments in designing and implementing policies and programs that promote ‘comprehensive early childhood care and education’, which seems to chiefly mean daycare.

The document lumps in parents with “other primary caregivers” as the children’s “first educators.” (Article 44).

It is important to read this new document in light of previous UN documents, particularly with regard to the role of parents and the family in education.

For instance, Article 26 (3) of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) explicitly states: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”

This gives parents not only the primary responsibility, but also a “prior right”, which means their authority supersedes that of others, including the State, when it comes to making decisions about their children’s education.

The UDHR, proclaimed in 1948, places parental authority and decision-making rights at the forefront, with little mention of the State’s role in the lives of children. This may have been partly a reaction against the State taking too much interest in fascist and communist countries in the education of children.

Similarly, the European Convention on Human Rights says: “the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” The State is  very much the servant of the parents.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), adopted in 1989, recognises the family’s role as fundamental in a child’s upbringing (Preamble and Articles 5, 18).

The Preamble to the CRC refers to the family as “the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children”. This is the same wording as in the UDHR (“The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society”, art. 16). The new UNESCO draft document, however, never refers to the family as natural or fundamental.

Moreover, Article 5 of the CRC clearly affirms that the State respects the rights of parents to guide their children in exercising their own rights.

“States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents … to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.” (Art. 5)

Of course, what does “evolving capacities” mean, and who decides when a child (that is, anyone under 18) has reached a point where, for example, they can read and watch what they want; parents or the State?

Article 18 of the CRC says that the State must support parents in their responsibilities through institutions and services.

The new UNESCO document envisages a bigger role for the State in family life.

For example, in Article 1 of the Preamble we read: “Every young child, from birth to 8 years of age, has the right to early childhood care and education (ECCE) in its different forms, encompassing physical, socio-emotional, cognitive and linguistic development”.

What does it mean by “early childhood care and education”? Commonly, this means daycare. Is UNESCO really saying that small children have a ‘right’ to be in daycare, meaning parents have a duty to put them there? What kind of education will they receive in such places? How much of this will be dictated by the State?

Our own Government certainly wants as many children as possible in daycare.

This UNESCO document is a step in the wrong direction. It needs to restore the view that parents are the primary educators, rather than merely the first educators of children.

A major new report paints an alarming picture of demographic decline

Falling fertility rates are propelling the major economies toward a major reckoning, according to a new study by the McKinsey Global Institute, one of the world’s leading management consulting firms.

As the report, entitled “Dependency and Depopulation? Confronting the Consequences of a New Demographic Reality” confirms, a huge and growing portion of the global population now resides in countries where fertility rates have fallen well below the replacement threshold of 2.1 children per woman.

In Ireland, it is currently at 1.5. Only in sub-Saharan Africa are fertility rates still well above replacement level.

This trend indicates that, by the end of the century, several major economies could witness population reductions ranging from 20pc to 50pc. For instance, China’s population has been decreasing year on year, with a reduction of 1.4 million in 2024 alone, and in 2100 will have less than half of the current population. Like the rest of East Asia, China does not want mass immigration to help alleviate the problem. However, even if China were to try this approach, there are simply not enough people in the world who can come to China and balance out its population decline between now and the end of the century.

The big decline in fertility rates is creating a growing unbalance between generations.

With families shrinking in size almost everywhere, for the first time in history a sharply declining number of young people will have to support for a fast growing cohort of older people who are not working.

The report calls “first wave economies” those regions that are at the forefront of experiencing demographic shifts associated with declining fertility and ageing populations.

In  what it calls ‘Advanced Asia’ (Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea), ‘Greater China’ (Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan) and ‘Western Europe’, there were 6.8 working-age individuals for every person over 65 years in 1997. Today this ratio is 3.9 to 1 and by 2050 it will fall to just two working age people for every retiree.

These changes pose challenges for economies traditionally reliant on a robust working-age demographic to support economic growth and social welfare systems.

To counteract this growing imbalance between the workers and those who depend on them – the McKinsey report claims – these countries would need to amplify productivity growth by two to four times the current rates or encourage individuals to work an additional one to five hours weekly. Moreover, retirement systems may require adjustments, potentially directing up to 50pc of labour income to cover the increasing gap between the financial needs and the income of the elderly population.

In confronting the consequences of demographic change, societies enter uncharted waters, according to the report.

“Even if global fertility rates were to jump overnight to the replacement rate, it would take 20 years, give or take, for those additional babies to become adults and begin contributing to economic growth through work”, the report notes.

The bad news is that no country so far has been able to return to replacement levels after falling below. 

The report suggests that migration can play a role in addressing labour shortages but only for a short period of time because many developing countries, which currently supply a large share of migrants, are expected to experience their own demographic transitions, leading to reduced migration flows in the long term. 

Demands of employers can’t dictate childcare policy

 

A new survey from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce (DCC) finds that a lack of affordable childcare affects employers’ ability to attract new employees. Aebhric Mc Gibney of DCC was interviewed on Morning Ireland about the survey, and as usual no consideration was given to all the parents of young children, especially mothers, who would prefer to mind their children at home rather than put them in daycare. It is like the referendums of last March never happened.

The latest ‘Business Outlook Survey’ by the DCC found that childcare challenges impact almost nine-in-ten (88pc) businesses to some degree.

Childcare availability and costs affect workforce participation and productivity, as employees struggle to balance work commitments with parental responsibilities, says the DCC.

The DCC has asked the next Government to prioritise a public model of childcare. “Moving to a public model will be critical for ensuring a steady supply of affordable, quality childcare and building a more sustainable and diverse labour market,” said Mia Finnegan, Public Affairs Executive at Dublin Chamber.

Nonetheless, while employers’ concerns about childcare availability and costs are valid in their own narrow way, they should not be the sole determinant in shaping childcare policies.

A survey commissioned by The Iona Institute last year, and conducted by Amarach Research, revealed that more than two-thirds (69pc) of mothers with children under 18 would prefer to stay at home with their children if financial circumstances allowed. Furthermore, 76pc of these mothers feel that women who work in the home are undervalued by society. These findings suggest a strong inclination among mothers towards full-time caregiving, provided economic conditions are favourable.

We can’t expect employers to care too much about this very large group. They want everyone out working, after all, because that helps their businesses. But it can’t be the only consideration for Government policy in this area.

According to the DCC survey, companies are trying to accommodate the needs of employees who are also parents in various ways. For example, 74pc offer remote work options and/or providing flexible working hours (70pc) arrangements.

Over a third (36pc) allow part-time work or reduced hours for parents with childcare needs, while 31pc offer paid parental leave or additional leave options.

While businesses may advocate for enhanced public daycare services to support working parents, it is also crucial to acknowledge and respect the desires of many mothers and fathers to prioritise home-based caregiving. Part-time work, reduced hours and additional leaves would allow those who want to continue to be employed to balance their work and parental responsibilities.

A public model of childcare would not suit every family. Childcare policies should strive to accommodate the diverse needs and preferences of parents, and to repeat, the demands of employers cannot be the decisive factor in the debate about childcare. A comprehensive strategy that considers the preferences and needs of parents, particularly mothers, is essential for creating a supportive environment for all families.

Curbs on religious freedom remain high in much of the world

 

What is the current state of religious freedom in the world? The latest report from the prestigious Pew Research Centre finds, not good. The report covers 2022, and finds that curbs on religious practices and beliefs remained at high levels worldwide.

The study, which assesses government-imposed restrictions and societal hostilities towards religion across 198 countries and territories, found that restrictions remain widespread, with notable regional and national variations.

The study uses measures called the ‘Government Restrictions Index ‘(GRI) and the ‘Social Hostilities Index’ (SHI) to quantify restrictions. The GRI examines twenty forms of government action, such as banning religious groups or restricting preaching, while the SHI assesses thirteen indicators of societal hostility, including religious conflict and harassment, for example, when a mob attacks a church. The research draws on sources such as the US State Department’s annual religious freedom reports and other data from the Council of Europe and the United Nations.

The report showed no significant improvement from 2021. The GRI remained at 3.0 out of 10, its highest recorded level. Similarly, the SHI, which evaluates religion-related societal hostilities, held steady at 1.6. These may not sound high, because they are average figures, but there is huge variation by country. In China, for example, there are very extensive government restrictions on religion. In India, attacks by Hindu militants on Christians are commonplace.

Although the average global scores have not changed, the number of countries experiencing high or very high levels of government restrictions rose to 59 in 2022, up from 55 the previous year. This marks the highest figure since the study began in 2007.

The report found harassment of religious groups by governments or groups in society in 192 of the 198 countries surveyed.

This represents a record high, surpassing the 190 countries reported in 2021. Government harassment occurred in 186 countries, an increase from 183 in the prior year, while societal harassment affected 164 countries, a consistent figure from 2021.

Physical harassment, including assaults, property damage, and displacement, also rose. Incidents were reported in 145 countries, up from 137 the previous year. Both government actors and private individuals were equally likely to engage in such harassment, with incidents involving either group occurring in 111 countries.

The Middle East and North Africa remained the regions with the highest levels of government restrictions, with their median GRI score rising from 5.9 to 6.1. While the Americas reported the lowest levels, with a median GRI score falling from 2.1 to 1.8. Europe also saw a slight decrease, with its score dropping from 3.1 to 2.9.

Mind you, the score for Europe of almost 3 (the world average for government restrictions on religious freedom) throws up certain questions about the methodology. It makes it appear that Europe is quite a bad place for religious freedom in global terms, which is clearly not the case in general terms, unless having an Established Church, as in say, Britain, Greece or Norway, counts as something bad. Moreover, severe Government restrictions on religious freedom in places like Russia and Ukraine does drag up the score.

There is also growing societal hostility in some European countries towards certain religious groups, not least Jews. But in France (say), Christian churches are sometimes attacked.

Among the world’s 25 most populous nations, notable trends include China’s “very high” levels of government restrictions paired with “low” social hostilities. Vietnam and Turkey exhibited “very high” government restrictions and “moderate” levels of societal hostility.

While global averages remain steady, the record number of countries with severe government restrictions underscores the persistent challenges facing religious freedom worldwide. The steady rise in harassment, both by governments and groups, signals the need for continued vigilance and advocacy.

Regional disparities highlight the varying dynamics of religious restrictions. As the Middle East-North Africa region continues to experience the highest levels of government restrictions, countries like the United States and Canada maintain relatively low levels. However, global stability in these indices shows no significant progress.

This annual report offers a reminder of the ongoing struggles faced by religious communities globally and the critical need for international cooperation to uphold the principles of religious freedom.