Rights-Centric Education Network

From Rights-Centric Education
Revision as of 18:05, 9 October 2024 by Sifaan (talk | contribs) (Created page with "The concept of Rights-Centric Education - that education should be assessed by how well it respects, protects, and fulfils Human Rights, and especially Child Rights - was born from the work of a small group. However, as Human Rights are for everyone without exception, they wanted a way to grow the movement without a hierarchy where some people (e.g. the originators) have more authority than others. To this end, there was a [http://rights-centric.education/MoA Memorandu...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The concept of Rights-Centric Education - that education should be assessed by how well it respects, protects, and fulfils Human Rights, and especially Child Rights - was born from the work of a small group.

However, as Human Rights are for everyone without exception, they wanted a way to grow the movement without a hierarchy where some people (e.g. the originators) have more authority than others.

To this end, there was a Memorandum of Association to establish the Rights-Centric Education Network (the Rights' Defenders calling for education to be centered on human rights) - everybody who signed[1] it became a Founding Member. There was an almost 4 months' window (July 24 - October 20, 2024) for this.

One of the expectations of the Founding Members was to determine how Membership would walk after the period of Founding.

Some of the key attributes were

  1. No gatekeeping of membership: No membership criteria to meet, no fees to pay, etc.
  2. No discrimination between Founding Members and those who would join later (i.e. Members) - except for Founding Members being recognized as Founders in their name.
  3. No obligations of membership - every member (Founding or not) would be welcome to contribute to the level they were able to, but there would be no minimum threshold

But... in such a situation, how do we make decisions? We can't define a quorum for meetings without imposing obligations on members.

The answer? That, as much as possible, answers are based on the consent of everyone who wishes to participate in making that particular decision. If anyone does not wish to consent, either the decision should not be taken, or taken in ways that doesn't impact the person who did not consent.

To this end, we have drafted Articles of Association that we hope will be sufficient for our aspirations.

  1. ↑ In addition to the option of a physical signature, there were also virtual options