I had a really bad experience the week before last. It was just past the middle of the month and I had run out of money. In February - the shortest month of the year! I couldn't understand how it happened. I suppose that part of the reason was that I was visited by an old friend with her two children for a few days and we did quite a bit of what my husband refers to as "gallivanting".
My neighbour and I were chatting over coffee and it turned out that she was in exactly the same situation. For her things were worsened by the fact that she had been ill for the previous two days and had had to miss two classes (she works on the side as an aerobics instructor) for which she wouldn't be getting paid AND she had just received the bill for repairs to her car after she had inadvertantly (is there any other way?) backed over a low fence.
This got me thinking about the whole issue of finances. This is not something I do often, which is why I am in the situation I described above. I calculated my daily "income" and realised that it doesn't amount to very much per day - or at least not as much as I have been spending on many occasions. A bit of balance is called for. So I've decided that rather than take the whole monthly amount as my budget, or even a weekly budget, I'm going to allocate a daily amount - less than what I actually have and stick to that. On days where I don't spend much I'm saving money for a "splurge" on another day. That way, when unexpected expenses come up, I can deal with them and hopefully I'll even have some money left at the end of the month - now wouldn't that be something!
Friday, March 02, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Compulsory schooling is a child's right
A commentary appeared in the Nürnberger Nachrichten today, which comments on all those of you who have been voicing their protests about Melissa Busekros. I noticed that someone in Nuremberg paid an extensive visit to my blog yesterday, and I was wondering if it was the person who wrote the commentary below.
The title is "Compulsory schooling is a child's right" (since when does a right become a duty)?
Subtitle: Why homeschooling can never be the solution.
There is great uproar on the internet forums which have been discussing the case of 15 year old Amina in the last few days. More than anything else, for supporters of the homeschooling movement, the story seems to serve as proof of the inhumane manner in which the government imposes Schulpflicht. They are all talking about human-rights abuses, about interference with the parents' right to decide where their children should live and saying that Schulpflicht only exists in Germany, thanks to none other than Adolf Hitler. As if this at last proves how evil this system is.
In actual fact, the idea of Schulpflicht was a child of the Enlightenment. The long history of its enforcement shows who was predominantly bound by it. The compulsory education law introduced in Bavaria in 1802, which required parents to somehow make sure that their children had the opportunity to learn reading, writing and mathematics, lasted until 1919 when the duty of all children to attend school was written into law. The citizens had managed to wrest a great achievement from the state : the right to schooling. The state now had to ensure that children from all families, independent of class or financial situation, received at least a basic education. For the first time equal opportunity existed.
Thinking means comparing
And primarily it is about the right of the children. Not just the right to literacy and to knowledge of basic math. Children also have the right to encouter the world from other points of view than that of their parents. Everyone who travels on the subway in Nuremberg can read daily the quote by Walther Rathenau "Thinking means comparing". Every homeschooled child who is exclusively fed with subject matter and knowledge by his parents will, in the worst case, not have the opportunity to compare.
In a pluralistic world, every adult can decide for him or herself whether he or she believes in the theory of evolution or literally hangs onto the words of the old Testament in finding the answer to the question "Where did people come from". Children must, however, be given the freedom of encountering the discoveries of modern science.
This right must not be taken from them by their parents. Surfing through the internet forums of homeschooling supporters who have stumbled onto the case of Amina, one constantly comes into contact with just this motive. These religious fundamentalists are advocating for children to be sheltered from the "devilishness" of evolution and sex education.
Parents must let go
Childraising means always letting go. Children do not belong to their parents any more than they do to the state. No-one has the right to shut his child away. Not even behind the walls of his own worldview. School is not just a place for learning, it is also an important place for hanging out in and for meeting other young people. Admittedly, things don't always function as they should. Whoever reads the newspapers has a good idea of the problems facing our schools. There are several good reasons to work for basic changes in our state educational facilities. Possibly also many good reasons to send our children to state-accredited private schools with better educational concepts.
This alters nothing about the validity of Schulpflicht. Its implementation is no act of authoritarian state arbitrariness, but rather a protection of children's rights.
The title is "Compulsory schooling is a child's right" (since when does a right become a duty)?
Subtitle: Why homeschooling can never be the solution.
There is great uproar on the internet forums which have been discussing the case of 15 year old Amina in the last few days. More than anything else, for supporters of the homeschooling movement, the story seems to serve as proof of the inhumane manner in which the government imposes Schulpflicht. They are all talking about human-rights abuses, about interference with the parents' right to decide where their children should live and saying that Schulpflicht only exists in Germany, thanks to none other than Adolf Hitler. As if this at last proves how evil this system is.
In actual fact, the idea of Schulpflicht was a child of the Enlightenment. The long history of its enforcement shows who was predominantly bound by it. The compulsory education law introduced in Bavaria in 1802, which required parents to somehow make sure that their children had the opportunity to learn reading, writing and mathematics, lasted until 1919 when the duty of all children to attend school was written into law. The citizens had managed to wrest a great achievement from the state : the right to schooling. The state now had to ensure that children from all families, independent of class or financial situation, received at least a basic education. For the first time equal opportunity existed.
And primarily it is about the right of the children. Not just the right to literacy and to knowledge of basic math. Children also have the right to encouter the world from other points of view than that of their parents. Everyone who travels on the subway in Nuremberg can read daily the quote by Walther Rathenau "Thinking means comparing". Every homeschooled child who is exclusively fed with subject matter and knowledge by his parents will, in the worst case, not have the opportunity to compare.
In a pluralistic world, every adult can decide for him or herself whether he or she believes in the theory of evolution or literally hangs onto the words of the old Testament in finding the answer to the question "Where did people come from". Children must, however, be given the freedom of encountering the discoveries of modern science.
This right must not be taken from them by their parents. Surfing through the internet forums of homeschooling supporters who have stumbled onto the case of Amina, one constantly comes into contact with just this motive. These religious fundamentalists are advocating for children to be sheltered from the "devilishness" of evolution and sex education.
Parents must let go
Childraising means always letting go. Children do not belong to their parents any more than they do to the state. No-one has the right to shut his child away. Not even behind the walls of his own worldview. School is not just a place for learning, it is also an important place for hanging out in and for meeting other young people. Admittedly, things don't always function as they should. Whoever reads the newspapers has a good idea of the problems facing our schools. There are several good reasons to work for basic changes in our state educational facilities. Possibly also many good reasons to send our children to state-accredited private schools with better educational concepts.
This alters nothing about the validity of Schulpflicht. Its implementation is no act of authoritarian state arbitrariness, but rather a protection of children's rights.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The Jugendamt- a law unto its own?
My last post took a dig at the original diagnosis of Melissa Busekros, which was convincing enough for the judge to remove her from her home. I had a closer look at that psychiatrist's report this morning (you can read a summary of it here in English - scroll down to update 10).
In the diagnosis (not mentioned in the English summary), Dr Schanda specifically diagnosed Melissa as suffering from the disorder F92.0 under the ICD 10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision).
I looked up this disorder here and read
F92.0
Depressive conduct disorder
This category requires the combination of conduct disorder (F91.-) with persistent and marked depression of mood (F32.-), as demonstrated by symptoms such as excessive misery, loss of interest and pleasure in usual activities, self-blame, and hopelessness; disturbances of sleep or appetite may also be present.
Conduct disorder in F91.- associated with depressive disorder in F32.-
When I looked at the conduct disorder in F91, I read
Conduct disorders
Disorders characterized by a repetitive and persistent pattern of dissocial, aggressive, or defiant conduct. Such behaviour should amount to major violations of age-appropriate social expectations; it should therefore be more severe than ordinary childish mischief or adolescent rebelliousness and should imply an enduring pattern of behaviour (six months or longer).
Does Dr Schanda have psychic abilities? Above, it says persistent and marked depression of mood, not the kind of depression of mood induced by being taken away in a cavalcade of police cars. Did Schanda ask Melissa "So do you feel like this every day?" Loss of interest and pleasure in the usual activities doesn't sound like the kind of thing happening to a girl who practised playing the piano every day and was regularly attending English classes at the local Volkshochschule (German version of a community college). Is a developmental emotional delay of one year a major violation of social expectations. I'm also not too sure about loss of appetite - her refusal to eat anything at the police station (because she'd already had breakfast) was certainly no indication of a lack of appetite.
The Jugendamt states that what has happened has nothing to do with Melissa being a homeschooler. However, when one reads the court judgements, which focus on Melissa's non-attendance at school and this website, which outlines a program in Nuremberg for dealing with truants, one wonders how true this statement is. The statement on page 3 of this document,
In hohem Maß gefährdet ist nämlich ihre Entwicklung zu einer "eigenverantwortlichen und gemeinschaftsfähigen Persönlichkeit" und ihre Integration in die Gesellschaft, (their development into a personality able to take responsibility for itself and to function in a community and their integration into the community is highly endangered )bears an eery resemblance to Schanda's statements about Melissa: Serious and universal social impairment in the area of school adjustment and school related interests, pastimes and the ability to cope with social situations. The title of the project is "Sichere Erziehung" "Secure Upbringing", which is, by the authors' own admittance, a euphemism because titles like "Freedom-limiting Measures", were a bit too controversial. (I can think of some even better euphemisms - how about Final Solution?)
In the diagnosis (not mentioned in the English summary), Dr Schanda specifically diagnosed Melissa as suffering from the disorder F92.0 under the ICD 10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision).
I looked up this disorder here and read
F92.0
Depressive conduct disorder
This category requires the combination of conduct disorder (F91.-) with persistent and marked depression of mood (F32.-), as demonstrated by symptoms such as excessive misery, loss of interest and pleasure in usual activities, self-blame, and hopelessness; disturbances of sleep or appetite may also be present.
Conduct disorder in F91.- associated with depressive disorder in F32.-
When I looked at the conduct disorder in F91, I read
Conduct disorders
Disorders characterized by a repetitive and persistent pattern of dissocial, aggressive, or defiant conduct. Such behaviour should amount to major violations of age-appropriate social expectations; it should therefore be more severe than ordinary childish mischief or adolescent rebelliousness and should imply an enduring pattern of behaviour (six months or longer).
Does Dr Schanda have psychic abilities? Above, it says persistent and marked depression of mood, not the kind of depression of mood induced by being taken away in a cavalcade of police cars. Did Schanda ask Melissa "So do you feel like this every day?" Loss of interest and pleasure in the usual activities doesn't sound like the kind of thing happening to a girl who practised playing the piano every day and was regularly attending English classes at the local Volkshochschule (German version of a community college). Is a developmental emotional delay of one year a major violation of social expectations. I'm also not too sure about loss of appetite - her refusal to eat anything at the police station (because she'd already had breakfast) was certainly no indication of a lack of appetite.
The Jugendamt states that what has happened has nothing to do with Melissa being a homeschooler. However, when one reads the court judgements, which focus on Melissa's non-attendance at school and this website, which outlines a program in Nuremberg for dealing with truants, one wonders how true this statement is. The statement on page 3 of this document,
In hohem Maß gefährdet ist nämlich ihre Entwicklung zu einer "eigenverantwortlichen und gemeinschaftsfähigen Persönlichkeit" und ihre Integration in die Gesellschaft, (their development into a personality able to take responsibility for itself and to function in a community and their integration into the community is highly endangered )bears an eery resemblance to Schanda's statements about Melissa: Serious and universal social impairment in the area of school adjustment and school related interests, pastimes and the ability to cope with social situations. The title of the project is "Sichere Erziehung" "Secure Upbringing", which is, by the authors' own admittance, a euphemism because titles like "Freedom-limiting Measures", were a bit too controversial. (I can think of some even better euphemisms - how about Final Solution?)
The fact is, is that Melissa's story is part of a much greater pattern. Removal of homeschooled children in Germany from their parent's custody is common practice in Germany. This is very easy to do, as school is perceived as essential to the child's welfare, by the courts as well as the social services and educational authorities. Last year another school refuser, a 15 year old boy who lived near me, was forced into a psychiatric institution against his and his mother's will after he became a ward of the state (the Jugendamt in question felt that going to therapy twice a week was not enough to deal with his problem). Last I heard he was still there, and he had been told that he was not going to be allowed to have any contact with his mother. The state even moved him to a clinic 2 hours drive away from where she lived. Even if there are emotional problems present, how can the state justify such a massive infringement of human rights?
The Jugendamt has been wrong before. For example, the case of the Haase family makes Melissa's situation look like a weekend at the funfair. (You can read the whole story here here too if you want - it's very long, but gives the whole background and the chronological order.) The scary part is not so much that the Haases had their children removed by the state, but that measures weren't taken by the relevant courts (apparently one judge even refused to recuse himself from the case) to ensure, as soon as possible, the validity of the expert opinion which led to this situation. They even refused to allow any witnesses to testify on behalf of the parents. At the beginning only the psychologist who issued the damning report, the representatives of the Jugendamt and Cornelia Haase's ex-husband were allowed to testify. Talk about accountability.
In a TV report, psychologist Uwe-Jörg Jopt blamed the miscarriage of justice in the Haase case on the failure of checks and balances. The only accountability which the Jugendamt has is to the judge of the family court, but when the judge takes the Jugendamt's expert at face value, the system is likely to break down, and has done so on several occasions. According to Jopt, the judges need to be better educated to enable them to evaluate the information brought before them. Although the Jugendamt has enormous power, the officials are only human and also make mistakes.
Another expert, Prof. Wolfgang Klenner is more critical of the role of the Jugendämter in cases such as these. In a letter to a German newspaper, he writes that as long as the officials can show that they have done all they can to prevent a child from being endangered in his or her current situation, they are protected from any repercussions. This is one explanation for the overzealous behaviour on the part of these officials. He states that they are then above the law. He says "To tell the truth, there are also women and men working in the Jugendämter who deserve full respect for their humanity and their sense of responsibility. However, these people are in the minority."
The Jugendamt claims to be working in Melissa's interests. But are they really? Or are they on a mission to prove themselves right? Frau Hoellerer of the Jugendamt has stated that the Busekros' will not get Melissa back as long as they continue stirring up people about her removal. Hallo, maybe someone should tell her that we are supposed to be living in a democratic country and not some banana republic dictatorship run by the Jugendamt.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
My diagnosis of the German education authorities
Inspired by the impressive performance of Dr S., who was able, after being with Melissa Busekros for only one hour, to deliver a really earth-shattering diagnosis, I have decided to collectively diagnose all those who are culpable in this and other atrocities against home educators in Germany.
Here is my diagnosis:
I.Findings
Introduction
Home education is legally possible in just about every democratic country. The few countries where it is still banned because of outmoded laws are either moving towards legalising it, have ways around the law or just ignore it and allow the majority of homeschoolers to live in peace. However in Germany, home education is not just outlawed, but the outlaws are pursued with all the fervour of the Sheriff of Nottingham going after Robin Hood.
Among those involved in conducting this campaign against home educators are education officials, welfare services, the police, politicians and judges. They have, on many occasions, worked together to force children to go to school, impose ruinous fines on their parents, jail the parents, remove their children from their care, lock the children away in psychiatric institutions and even label the parents as needing psychiatric measures.
Psychopathological Findings
These various officials seem to believe that children can only be properly integrated into society if they attend school. They think that school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct.
Daily contact with other students from all walks of life promotes tolerance, encourages dialogue
among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens. According to these people, compulsory schooling prevents the rise of parallel societies. Although these officials, as well as many other Germans, are accepting of home education when is practised outside their borders or by celebrities who pay enormous taxes to the state in which they are resident, they maintain that home education of normal children in Germany endangers the child's welfare and is subversive.
1. Clinical psychiatric syndromes:
This group of people is collectively afflicted by a variety of disorders. In summary, the current clinical-psychiatric finding shows that they have an emotional disturbance which is connected to a massive homeschool phobia and a strong narcissistic personality disorder. I see signs of autistic tendencies, demonstrated by their inability to relate to what is happening in the rest of the world. There is also evidence of schizophrenia, with this group of people accepting homeschooling in some circumstances but not in others, with a strong collective delusionality being present.These are all signs of a syndrome called affective homeschool aversion, which has just been discovered and named by me.
2. Outlined developmental disturbances of human-rights related talents:
Not tested - so far the European court of Human Rights has not ruled on a German homeschooling case, refusing to take on the only case which has so far come in front of them.
3. Results of intelligence:
Since its dismal performance in the 2003 Pisa study , Germany's school system has been shown to be severely lacking.
4. Physical symptoms:
Convulsions and palpitations when the possibility of home education being legalised in Germany is mentioned by the media.
5. Current abnormal psychosocial circumstances:
From the late middle ages it became increasingly popular in Germany to label people, particularly women, who in any way deviated from the mainstream as witches, leading to inhuman torture being used against these people. Although a homeschooler is no longer likely to be forced to wear an mask with spikes on the inside, the fear instilled by these measures has lasted down the generations in the collective German consciousness.
6. Global judgment of psychosocial adjustment:
Serious and universal social impairment in the area of adjustment to changing global conditions and interest in educational alternatives, lack of foresight and the inability to cope with free thinkers.
II. Position
We were unable to confront these people with the situation in Germany because they just ignored us. On the grounds of their massive homeschool-refusal, the emotional disturbance and the unsatisfactory willingness to cooperate on the part of the authorities, a relocation to a suitable homeschooling family overseas for the period of one year is urgently required in order to avoid endangerment to the development of their personalities.
Through intensive support and rehabilitation measures (no large groups and no intensive school exposure), it could be possible for these people to start accepting homeschooling within these parameters. A favorable development is possible. The education authorities and their accomplices were examined by us. They suffer an educational developmental disturbance (they are at least 20 years behind the USA and Great Britain, 10 years behind South Africa, 3 years behind the Czech Republic and are even being overtaken by Romania, which was formerly one of the most restrictive of the communist countries), a massive homeschool phobia and an oppositional denial-syndrome.
With friendly greetings, (Sorry, I just can't continue the long-winded style of the original diagnosis).
Here is my diagnosis:
I.Findings
Introduction
Home education is legally possible in just about every democratic country. The few countries where it is still banned because of outmoded laws are either moving towards legalising it, have ways around the law or just ignore it and allow the majority of homeschoolers to live in peace. However in Germany, home education is not just outlawed, but the outlaws are pursued with all the fervour of the Sheriff of Nottingham going after Robin Hood.
Among those involved in conducting this campaign against home educators are education officials, welfare services, the police, politicians and judges. They have, on many occasions, worked together to force children to go to school, impose ruinous fines on their parents, jail the parents, remove their children from their care, lock the children away in psychiatric institutions and even label the parents as needing psychiatric measures.
Psychopathological Findings
These various officials seem to believe that children can only be properly integrated into society if they attend school. They think that school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct.
Daily contact with other students from all walks of life promotes tolerance, encourages dialogue
among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens. According to these people, compulsory schooling prevents the rise of parallel societies. Although these officials, as well as many other Germans, are accepting of home education when is practised outside their borders or by celebrities who pay enormous taxes to the state in which they are resident, they maintain that home education of normal children in Germany endangers the child's welfare and is subversive.
1. Clinical psychiatric syndromes:
This group of people is collectively afflicted by a variety of disorders. In summary, the current clinical-psychiatric finding shows that they have an emotional disturbance which is connected to a massive homeschool phobia and a strong narcissistic personality disorder. I see signs of autistic tendencies, demonstrated by their inability to relate to what is happening in the rest of the world. There is also evidence of schizophrenia, with this group of people accepting homeschooling in some circumstances but not in others, with a strong collective delusionality being present.These are all signs of a syndrome called affective homeschool aversion, which has just been discovered and named by me.
2. Outlined developmental disturbances of human-rights related talents:
Not tested - so far the European court of Human Rights has not ruled on a German homeschooling case, refusing to take on the only case which has so far come in front of them.
3. Results of intelligence:
Since its dismal performance in the 2003 Pisa study , Germany's school system has been shown to be severely lacking.
4. Physical symptoms:
Convulsions and palpitations when the possibility of home education being legalised in Germany is mentioned by the media.
5. Current abnormal psychosocial circumstances:
From the late middle ages it became increasingly popular in Germany to label people, particularly women, who in any way deviated from the mainstream as witches, leading to inhuman torture being used against these people. Although a homeschooler is no longer likely to be forced to wear an mask with spikes on the inside, the fear instilled by these measures has lasted down the generations in the collective German consciousness.
6. Global judgment of psychosocial adjustment:
Serious and universal social impairment in the area of adjustment to changing global conditions and interest in educational alternatives, lack of foresight and the inability to cope with free thinkers.
II. Position
We were unable to confront these people with the situation in Germany because they just ignored us. On the grounds of their massive homeschool-refusal, the emotional disturbance and the unsatisfactory willingness to cooperate on the part of the authorities, a relocation to a suitable homeschooling family overseas for the period of one year is urgently required in order to avoid endangerment to the development of their personalities.
Through intensive support and rehabilitation measures (no large groups and no intensive school exposure), it could be possible for these people to start accepting homeschooling within these parameters. A favorable development is possible. The education authorities and their accomplices were examined by us. They suffer an educational developmental disturbance (they are at least 20 years behind the USA and Great Britain, 10 years behind South Africa, 3 years behind the Czech Republic and are even being overtaken by Romania, which was formerly one of the most restrictive of the communist countries), a massive homeschool phobia and an oppositional denial-syndrome.
With friendly greetings, (Sorry, I just can't continue the long-winded style of the original diagnosis).
Friday, February 02, 2007
German homeschooler forced into psychiatric institution
Fifteen year old German homeschooler forcibly admitted into a mental institution
The day before Christmas, the German newspaper, Erlanger Nachrichten published a picture of the eight-member Busekros family standing happily together around an advent wreath. The title of the accompanying article was “Only families open the way for new perspectives". On the first of February this year, the Busekros’ oldest daughter was torn from her family by force, thanks to a judge’s ruling : Compulsory admittance to the Klinikum Nuremberg-Nord, a psychiatric clinic for children and young people and loss of parental custody.
In summer 2005, then 13 year old Melissa was told that she would have to repeat the 7th grade at the Christian Ernst Gymnasium (a high school where one can obtain the Abitur, the highest German high school diploma) due to her bad grades in math and latin. The situation in the class played no small part in creating this state of affairs - the high noise levels and cancelled classes prevented her from receiving the educational assistance she needed during school hours. As Melissa had good grades in all the other subjects, repeating the whole year would be mostly a waste of her time, as well as the fact that she would now be in a class even more problematic than the previous year’s. Thus, it was decided by Melissa and her parents that she would be tutored individually at home to meet her specific needs. At her own wish, Melissa only took part in Music and sang in her school choir. The school and the local school authorities were not satisfied with this solution, and consequently expelled Melissa from the school, allocating her to the local Hauptschule (the lowest in the German three-tier high school system.
The Busekros continued educating their daughter at home, with their other school-age children still attending school. At the end of the school year 2005/2006, Melissa was no longer subject to full-time compulsory schooling. In spite of this the Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt) in Erlangen appealed to the local Family Court, which ordered Melissa and her parents to appear at a hearing, which was consequently attended solely by her father. Melissa was overseas at that point. However, the authorities didn’t relent and wanted to know in detail where Melissa was, resulting in an unannounced visit to the family by the Judge of the Family Court.
The Busekros family is known and much loved by all their neighbours. Their willingness to be photographed for an article in the local newspaper demonstrates that they have nothing to hide. That was not good enough for the officials. On Tuesday 30th January just after 7am, Mrs Busekros and her children – Mr Busekros had already left for work – were startled by the appearance of social workers and police officials who demanded that Melissa, now aged 15, be handed over to them immediately. They had as authorisation a decision by the Erlangen Court (case no. 006 F 01004/06) of the 29th of January. It stated “The relevant Youth Welfare Office is hereby instructed and authorised to bring the child, if necessary by force, to a hearing and may obtain police support for this purpose.”
Melissa was brought into the Child Psychiatry Unit of the Nuremburg clinic and was subjected to an interrogation in the presence of the specialist Dr. Schanda. After this interrogation, about three and a half hours after she was coerced into the clinic, Melissa was returned home. Her relieved parents and her five younger siblings, who didn’t know when they would ever see Melissa again, as well as Melissa herself didn’t know that the worst was still to come.
On the afternoon of the 1st of February, the judge of the Family Court, representatives of the Youth Welfare Office, along with fifteen police officers, marched up to the Busekros home, to haul Melissa off to the Child Psychiatry Unit of the Nuremberg clinic. The judicial decision authorising this also removed Melissa from her parents’ custody, according to her father, Hubert Busekros.This treatment was justified by the psychiatrist’s finding, two days previously, that she was supposedly developmentally delayed by one year and that she suffered from school phobia. The fact that the less than optimal testing environment and the unexpectedness of the tests could have impacted on Melissa’s performance were not taken into account in this decision. It is not known when Melissa’s parents and siblings will be able to see her again, as the official approach in cases of “school phobia” is to completely prevent the “patient” from having any contact with those closest to him or her, as such contact supposedly enables the phobia.
The article, "Only families open the way for new perspectives " was accompanied by the photo of a happily smiling Melissa surrounded by her loved ones – in her current situation, she can’t have much to smile about. Will her smiles disappear completely, while the bureaucrats who placed her in this situation remain smug in their certainty that they have made her life better? What is being done to a sensitive and musical young girl, just because the bureaucrats want to set an example? In their zealous drive to enforce compulsory schooling (which by Melissa’s age is only part-time) at all costs, they readily accept the trauma caused to the unassuming and lovable Melissa.
If Melissa had lived in Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, the UK or Belgium, all those involved – the schoolgirl, her parents and the educational officials involved – would have been, at the very least, unperturbed that she was being educated at home. In these countries, as in practically the rest of the world, home education is a legally recognised alternative to school, which can be a boon to children with special needs and gifts. Many of those German school pupils who have had to repeat grades would have been able to complete their schooling without stress in these countries if they had parents as involved as Melissa’s. Melissa, on the other hand, has been turned into a psychiatric case : a German schoolchild’s nightmare.
The Netzwerk Bildungsfreiheit condemns this inconsiderate and totally incommensurate behaviour on the part of the officials involved and demands that they give Melissa her freedom and return her to her family immediately. Additionally, the Netzwerk Bildungsfreiheit calls all politicians and those in political offices, in Erlangen and the rest of Germany, to ensure that such human rights abuses and and high-handed behaviour by government officials are stopped, even if it requires personal intervention.
Here are some phone numbers which you can call to express your support for Melissa and her family and your outrage at the actions taken by the state officials.
Clinic: +49 911 398 - 2970 od 3870, 7099 Fax Haus 48 Station B, KJP_B@klinikum-nürnberg.de; axel.froelich@klinikum-nürnberg.deFamily Court: +49 9131 782-359; +49 9131 782-361 Fax District Court: +49 9131 782-0; +49 9131 782-480 Fax
The day before Christmas, the German newspaper, Erlanger Nachrichten published a picture of the eight-member Busekros family standing happily together around an advent wreath. The title of the accompanying article was “Only families open the way for new perspectives". On the first of February this year, the Busekros’ oldest daughter was torn from her family by force, thanks to a judge’s ruling : Compulsory admittance to the Klinikum Nuremberg-Nord, a psychiatric clinic for children and young people and loss of parental custody.
In summer 2005, then 13 year old Melissa was told that she would have to repeat the 7th grade at the Christian Ernst Gymnasium (a high school where one can obtain the Abitur, the highest German high school diploma) due to her bad grades in math and latin. The situation in the class played no small part in creating this state of affairs - the high noise levels and cancelled classes prevented her from receiving the educational assistance she needed during school hours. As Melissa had good grades in all the other subjects, repeating the whole year would be mostly a waste of her time, as well as the fact that she would now be in a class even more problematic than the previous year’s. Thus, it was decided by Melissa and her parents that she would be tutored individually at home to meet her specific needs. At her own wish, Melissa only took part in Music and sang in her school choir. The school and the local school authorities were not satisfied with this solution, and consequently expelled Melissa from the school, allocating her to the local Hauptschule (the lowest in the German three-tier high school system.
The Busekros continued educating their daughter at home, with their other school-age children still attending school. At the end of the school year 2005/2006, Melissa was no longer subject to full-time compulsory schooling. In spite of this the Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt) in Erlangen appealed to the local Family Court, which ordered Melissa and her parents to appear at a hearing, which was consequently attended solely by her father. Melissa was overseas at that point. However, the authorities didn’t relent and wanted to know in detail where Melissa was, resulting in an unannounced visit to the family by the Judge of the Family Court.
The Busekros family is known and much loved by all their neighbours. Their willingness to be photographed for an article in the local newspaper demonstrates that they have nothing to hide. That was not good enough for the officials. On Tuesday 30th January just after 7am, Mrs Busekros and her children – Mr Busekros had already left for work – were startled by the appearance of social workers and police officials who demanded that Melissa, now aged 15, be handed over to them immediately. They had as authorisation a decision by the Erlangen Court (case no. 006 F 01004/06) of the 29th of January. It stated “The relevant Youth Welfare Office is hereby instructed and authorised to bring the child, if necessary by force, to a hearing and may obtain police support for this purpose.”
Melissa was brought into the Child Psychiatry Unit of the Nuremburg clinic and was subjected to an interrogation in the presence of the specialist Dr. Schanda. After this interrogation, about three and a half hours after she was coerced into the clinic, Melissa was returned home. Her relieved parents and her five younger siblings, who didn’t know when they would ever see Melissa again, as well as Melissa herself didn’t know that the worst was still to come.
On the afternoon of the 1st of February, the judge of the Family Court, representatives of the Youth Welfare Office, along with fifteen police officers, marched up to the Busekros home, to haul Melissa off to the Child Psychiatry Unit of the Nuremberg clinic. The judicial decision authorising this also removed Melissa from her parents’ custody, according to her father, Hubert Busekros.This treatment was justified by the psychiatrist’s finding, two days previously, that she was supposedly developmentally delayed by one year and that she suffered from school phobia. The fact that the less than optimal testing environment and the unexpectedness of the tests could have impacted on Melissa’s performance were not taken into account in this decision. It is not known when Melissa’s parents and siblings will be able to see her again, as the official approach in cases of “school phobia” is to completely prevent the “patient” from having any contact with those closest to him or her, as such contact supposedly enables the phobia.
The article, "Only families open the way for new perspectives " was accompanied by the photo of a happily smiling Melissa surrounded by her loved ones – in her current situation, she can’t have much to smile about. Will her smiles disappear completely, while the bureaucrats who placed her in this situation remain smug in their certainty that they have made her life better? What is being done to a sensitive and musical young girl, just because the bureaucrats want to set an example? In their zealous drive to enforce compulsory schooling (which by Melissa’s age is only part-time) at all costs, they readily accept the trauma caused to the unassuming and lovable Melissa.
If Melissa had lived in Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, the UK or Belgium, all those involved – the schoolgirl, her parents and the educational officials involved – would have been, at the very least, unperturbed that she was being educated at home. In these countries, as in practically the rest of the world, home education is a legally recognised alternative to school, which can be a boon to children with special needs and gifts. Many of those German school pupils who have had to repeat grades would have been able to complete their schooling without stress in these countries if they had parents as involved as Melissa’s. Melissa, on the other hand, has been turned into a psychiatric case : a German schoolchild’s nightmare.
The Netzwerk Bildungsfreiheit condemns this inconsiderate and totally incommensurate behaviour on the part of the officials involved and demands that they give Melissa her freedom and return her to her family immediately. Additionally, the Netzwerk Bildungsfreiheit calls all politicians and those in political offices, in Erlangen and the rest of Germany, to ensure that such human rights abuses and and high-handed behaviour by government officials are stopped, even if it requires personal intervention.
Here are some phone numbers which you can call to express your support for Melissa and her family and your outrage at the actions taken by the state officials.
Clinic: +49 911 398 - 2970 od 3870, 7099 Fax Haus 48 Station B, KJP_B@klinikum-nürnberg.de; axel.froelich@klinikum-nürnberg.deFamily Court: +49 9131 782-359; +49 9131 782-361 Fax District Court: +49 9131 782-0; +49 9131 782-480 Fax
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Math card war
I stumbled across this post thanks to the Carnival of Homeschooling.
Haven't got much time to read it, as we're off to visit these friends this morning.
Haven't got much time to read it, as we're off to visit these friends this morning.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Part 7 - The Rest of the Decision
2. The plaintiffs have no claim to have their children released from the general obligation to attend school.
According to para. 57, section 2 of the Bremen School Statute the possibility of being released from the obligation to attend a state or state recognised school exists only in cases of ‘special exception’. Decisions in this respect are to be made by the schools supervisory authority (‘Schulaufsicht’) at its due discretion (‘possible exemption’). The limits of this discretion are set by the content of the judicially unrestrictedly verifiable undetermined legal term ‘special case of exception’. If such a case is given, then there is generally no scope for discretion; the degree of discretionary freedom reduces to zero. In maintaining that the school authorities have not exercised the discretion granted to them plaintiffs have failed to appreciate this. This is borne out by the authority’s statement that it has never released a primary age pupil from the obligation to attend school. The present case requires, however, no exercise of discretion, because it does not represent an exception and certainly not a ‘special’ exception. The defendant has rightly pointed out that there is a wide range of school options amongst the state schools in Bremen, even for children with school phobia and especially in the primary sector. At any rate the simple participation in ‘homeschooling’ or in a correspondence course with an unrecognised private school does not represent a particular exception in the sense of an important hardship justifying a (complete) release from the general obligation to attend school. Notwithstanding the fact that, following an Anglo-American trend which can be observed in some neighbouring countries as well, alternative educational possibilities are finding increasing favour amongst parents, the fact remains that these alternative schools in combination with home teaching do not lead to school-leaving qualifications which are recognised in Germany, so that entrance to most vocational training schemes or institutes of higher education will be blocked or at least made excessively more difficult for the (school) graduates. In addition there is no guarantee that the educational aims promulgated by the state will be attained, nor is a later transfer to a regular school easily possible, as the example of the sons of the plaintiffs with the time-limited cooperation agreement displays impressively, the aim of which is to synchronise the home learning with school learning aims, expressly in order to enable the children a smooth transfer to a regular state school. This is in itself sufficient reason for the desire of the plaintiffs to teach their children at home to be given a lower priority than the welfare of the children (cf. section 1.; also Niehus/Rux as above, marginal note No. 320); it does not represent an especially exceptional case.
Detriments to their children’s health which the plaintiffs allege to have established as being a consequence of their children’s periodic attendance at school also do not, in their case, provide grounds for homeschooling. Such psycho-somatic incursions on pupils’ health can also be caused in other pupils, often and mainly by fears of school or examinations, without this constituting grounds for a claim to be completely freed from the obligation to attend school. The school [as institution] must take account of difficulties such as these in some other way within the framework of its widely diversified primary school programme. Only health problems of considerable gravity which cannot be solved in the long-term and of which school attendance is the cause can constitute special circumstances which justify the exceptional exemption from the obligation to attend school. This is certainly not the case in the present instance. It may remain open to question as to whether the plaintiffs’ statement that their children experience feelings of unease and display symptoms of psycho-somatic disturbance when attending primary school is credible or whether the possibility is not to be discounted that the physical reactions to school attendance displayed in the past recur as the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy, because there is some reason to believe that the children’s potential disturbance syndromes are implemented as a means to the end of achieving the parental desire for homeschooling (thus the expertise of the Bremen Health Office – Social- Paediatric Department – dated 09.06.2006 resulting from the school authority’s request for a medical examination of the children).
The motion to hear evidence placed during the hearing which involved calling for an expert opinion as to whether from a medical (including psychological or psychiatrical) point of view reasons exist as to why the children should not attend school, whether there are alternatives and to what extent obliging the children to attend school would prejudice their welfare in view of their refusal to attend a state school does not contain a statement (of facts) which is open to verification. This results from the use of the word ‘whether’, which the plaintiffs’ representative continued to use despite the court having pointed this out. The motion, being based merely on suppositions and in no way on concrete indications (such as medical reports or certificates), places no obligation on the court to instigate further processes for obtaining or hearing evidence (BVerwG, B. v. 31.01.2002, 7 B 92/01; JURIS; OVG Bremen, B. v. 29.06.2005, 2 A 257/04.A).
Apart from this, a medical expertise at the present point in time would not be able to establish any indications of illness relating to school attendance as the children have not attended school (disregarding very few exceptions) for more than one year. An examination would presuppose that the children attend school, which the plaintiffs refuse for reasons which they themselves have to answer for.
The decision to award costs is based on para. 154, section 1 of the Administrative Costing Regulations.
The regulation of the provisional enforceability is based on para. 167 of the Administrative Costing Regulations in connection with para. 708 No. 11 of the Civil Processes Regulations.
Instructions on the rights of appeal
[There follow two statements concerning rights of appeal. One concerns the possibility of appeal against this judgement to the next highest court (the right to appeal is granted as the case has a basic significance which extends beyond the boundaries of this individual situation). The other statement concerns the possibility of appeal against the determination of the ‘Streitwert’, i.e. the nominal amount of money involved in the case.]
According to para. 57, section 2 of the Bremen School Statute the possibility of being released from the obligation to attend a state or state recognised school exists only in cases of ‘special exception’. Decisions in this respect are to be made by the schools supervisory authority (‘Schulaufsicht’) at its due discretion (‘possible exemption’). The limits of this discretion are set by the content of the judicially unrestrictedly verifiable undetermined legal term ‘special case of exception’. If such a case is given, then there is generally no scope for discretion; the degree of discretionary freedom reduces to zero. In maintaining that the school authorities have not exercised the discretion granted to them plaintiffs have failed to appreciate this. This is borne out by the authority’s statement that it has never released a primary age pupil from the obligation to attend school. The present case requires, however, no exercise of discretion, because it does not represent an exception and certainly not a ‘special’ exception. The defendant has rightly pointed out that there is a wide range of school options amongst the state schools in Bremen, even for children with school phobia and especially in the primary sector. At any rate the simple participation in ‘homeschooling’ or in a correspondence course with an unrecognised private school does not represent a particular exception in the sense of an important hardship justifying a (complete) release from the general obligation to attend school. Notwithstanding the fact that, following an Anglo-American trend which can be observed in some neighbouring countries as well, alternative educational possibilities are finding increasing favour amongst parents, the fact remains that these alternative schools in combination with home teaching do not lead to school-leaving qualifications which are recognised in Germany, so that entrance to most vocational training schemes or institutes of higher education will be blocked or at least made excessively more difficult for the (school) graduates. In addition there is no guarantee that the educational aims promulgated by the state will be attained, nor is a later transfer to a regular school easily possible, as the example of the sons of the plaintiffs with the time-limited cooperation agreement displays impressively, the aim of which is to synchronise the home learning with school learning aims, expressly in order to enable the children a smooth transfer to a regular state school. This is in itself sufficient reason for the desire of the plaintiffs to teach their children at home to be given a lower priority than the welfare of the children (cf. section 1.; also Niehus/Rux as above, marginal note No. 320); it does not represent an especially exceptional case.
Detriments to their children’s health which the plaintiffs allege to have established as being a consequence of their children’s periodic attendance at school also do not, in their case, provide grounds for homeschooling. Such psycho-somatic incursions on pupils’ health can also be caused in other pupils, often and mainly by fears of school or examinations, without this constituting grounds for a claim to be completely freed from the obligation to attend school. The school [as institution] must take account of difficulties such as these in some other way within the framework of its widely diversified primary school programme. Only health problems of considerable gravity which cannot be solved in the long-term and of which school attendance is the cause can constitute special circumstances which justify the exceptional exemption from the obligation to attend school. This is certainly not the case in the present instance. It may remain open to question as to whether the plaintiffs’ statement that their children experience feelings of unease and display symptoms of psycho-somatic disturbance when attending primary school is credible or whether the possibility is not to be discounted that the physical reactions to school attendance displayed in the past recur as the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy, because there is some reason to believe that the children’s potential disturbance syndromes are implemented as a means to the end of achieving the parental desire for homeschooling (thus the expertise of the Bremen Health Office – Social- Paediatric Department – dated 09.06.2006 resulting from the school authority’s request for a medical examination of the children).
The motion to hear evidence placed during the hearing which involved calling for an expert opinion as to whether from a medical (including psychological or psychiatrical) point of view reasons exist as to why the children should not attend school, whether there are alternatives and to what extent obliging the children to attend school would prejudice their welfare in view of their refusal to attend a state school does not contain a statement (of facts) which is open to verification. This results from the use of the word ‘whether’, which the plaintiffs’ representative continued to use despite the court having pointed this out. The motion, being based merely on suppositions and in no way on concrete indications (such as medical reports or certificates), places no obligation on the court to instigate further processes for obtaining or hearing evidence (BVerwG, B. v. 31.01.2002, 7 B 92/01; JURIS; OVG Bremen, B. v. 29.06.2005, 2 A 257/04.A).
Apart from this, a medical expertise at the present point in time would not be able to establish any indications of illness relating to school attendance as the children have not attended school (disregarding very few exceptions) for more than one year. An examination would presuppose that the children attend school, which the plaintiffs refuse for reasons which they themselves have to answer for.
The decision to award costs is based on para. 154, section 1 of the Administrative Costing Regulations.
The regulation of the provisional enforceability is based on para. 167 of the Administrative Costing Regulations in connection with para. 708 No. 11 of the Civil Processes Regulations.
Instructions on the rights of appeal
[There follow two statements concerning rights of appeal. One concerns the possibility of appeal against this judgement to the next highest court (the right to appeal is granted as the case has a basic significance which extends beyond the boundaries of this individual situation). The other statement concerns the possibility of appeal against the determination of the ‘Streitwert’, i.e. the nominal amount of money involved in the case.]
Part 6 - More Fairy Tales
The plaintiffs’ argument that they cannot act against their consciences by, notwithstanding their open attitude towards school in general, forcing their plaintiffs [sic – clearly the children are meant here] to attend school against their will cannot be admitted.
According to paragraph 60, section 4 of the Bremen School Statute the plaintiffs are responsible for causing the fulfilment of their children’s obligation to attend school in their capacities as agents for bringing up their children. This ruling mainly affects the general external relationship between the state and its citizens, but also indirectly the special internal relationship between children and their parents, in that it provides an adequate construal of the terms care and education as contained in Article 6, section 2, page 1 of the Basic Law. In this respect that ‘natural’ approach applies which, as a special aspect of this section, concerns the scope and limitations of parents’ responsibilities (cf. Dreher, Basic Law Vol. 1 1996, Art. 6, marginal note No. 95). There can be no collision between parental rights and children’s rights where a child is incapable of being aware of these on account of its lack of rational/intellectual maturity. In such a case no conflict with the parental right to educate can arise. On the other hand, if the educational aim of engendering a self-determining and selfresponsible personality is (partially) fulfilled, the aspect of parental responsibility contained in Art. 6, section 2, page 1 of the Basic Law is no longer applicable (Dreher, see above). The parental right to educate serves to promote the welfare of the child and is accompanied by obligations; thus it must, on account of its purpose and character, be surrendered when the child has reached an age at which it has gained sufficient maturity to judge its own life situation and be legally responsible for itself. As a right which is oriented to the child and the development of its personality it represents a part of its nature that it should become increasingly superfluous and immaterial according to the child’s growing maturity (cf. Decisions of the FCC 59, 360).
In view of this it is irrelevant as to whether the constitutionality of paragraph 60, section 4 of the (common law) Bremen School Statute is questionable insofar as it assigns the responsibility for fulfilling children’s obligation to attend school to the agents responsible for their education, i.e. also in respect of adult children as the case may be. Certainly in the case of the plaintiffs’ children aged seven and nine respectively the parental authority assigned by Art. 6, section 2, page 1 of the Basic Law includes the right to determine unilaterally for them. The very word ‘education’ (original: ‘Erziehung’, includes wider sense of upbringing) – when viewed without ideological ballast – constitutes ‘determination from without’ simply according to its basic meaning. The formal conflict between parental rights (and duties) and children’s rights is resolved by the constitution unilaterally in favour of the rights of the parents. If the will of the parents is in accordance with the child’s welfare it enjoys the basic support of the legal framework governing parental rights. To the same extent, the will of the children carries no weight (cf. commentary to the Bonn Basic Law, see above, marginal note 141) (Presumably the Bonn Commentary to the Basic Law is intended.) Thus it behoves the plaintiffs, who have on their own account an open attitude to school as an institution, but favour homeschooling for their children, to do justice to their responsibilities and for the sake of their children’s welfare (see above) to ensure their attendance at school. This does not entail an extraordinary hardship which could be at variance with the fulfilment of the obligation to attend school. This will be addressed further later (see 2.).
It is also basically to be expected of the plaintiffs that they should react appropriately to the educative necessity resulting from the children’s lacking ability to judge the situation and should insist on their attending school. This does not necessarily involve compulsion. The parental right to educate, which with its attendant obligations should serve exclusively to promote the welfare of the child (see above), does not give the parents freedom of choice in the sense of unfettered self-determination (cf. Decisions of the FCC 59, 360), but rather aims to encourage family discussion of matters of parental concern on a level suited to the child’s stage of development with a view to achieving a consensus (cf. also para. 1626, section 2, German Civil Code). The idea that this should not be possible in the case of the plaintiffs’ seven and nine year old children appears unrealistic. Insofar as the children have not been (subconsciously as the case may be) influenced to boycott the school in order to oblige the parents, it may be demanded of the latter to issue an energetic appeal. Also, in order to persuade them to attend school it should suffice to point out to the children what the parents may expect in terms of the coercion which has already been threatened (fines, substitutional coercible detention (‘Erzatzzwangshaft’) and other measures up to and including the withdrawal of their custodial rights. Furthermore, pupils who do not fulfil the obligation to attend school can, according to paragraph 64 of the Bremen School Statute, be forced to attend school. ‘Obliging’ parents who exercise indulgence towards their children can, objectively, certainly cause harm to them if they, for instance, fail to supervise the child’s school attendance sufficiently or fail to send it to school over a long period of time on account of a condition which they themselves have diagnosed (cf. commentary to the Bonn Basic Law, see above, marginal note No. 192) (Presumably the Bonn Commentary to the Basic Law is intended.) Finally, children of the age of the plaintiffs’ sons generally require (parental) authority which shows them where their limits are in order to acquire self-discipline. At that age they expect their parents to give them clear guidance and to intercede when conflicts arise. At the same time this means that the educational rights and duties of the parents specifically serve to protect the immature child from the disadvantageous results of a discharge of duties which has practically been put at its disposal.
As they admitted during the hearing, in exercising their rights to bring up their children in other areas of life the plaintiffs unquestioningly, as it were, insist on asserting their own wills against those of the children where this appears to be in their interests and do not thereby get caught up in an irresolvable moral conflict. Why this should be impossible in, of all things, an area of such importance for the children’s development as school remains obscure and suggests that the plaintiffs’ behaviour is influenced not only by the children’s welfare but perhaps also by the thought of presenting and promoting the possibility for individualised educational educational paths (homeschooling), which they consider to be the better form of education anyway, in a manner inviting much public attention. Be that as it may. (Possibly correct interpretation of mysterious sentence: Das mag aber letztlich auf sich beruhen.)
Thus it may be stated with certainty that the plaintiffs’ children are basically subject to the obligation to attend school (paras. 52 ff, Bremen School Statute) and that in order to fulfil this obligation they must attend a state or state recognised school in the State of Bremen (para. 55, section 1, Bremen School Statute). The obligation to attend school covers amongst other things regular attendance in classes (para. 55, section 7, page 1, Bremen School Statute) which the plaintiffs must ensure as a matter of principle on the basis of their commission to bring up their children.
According to paragraph 60, section 4 of the Bremen School Statute the plaintiffs are responsible for causing the fulfilment of their children’s obligation to attend school in their capacities as agents for bringing up their children. This ruling mainly affects the general external relationship between the state and its citizens, but also indirectly the special internal relationship between children and their parents, in that it provides an adequate construal of the terms care and education as contained in Article 6, section 2, page 1 of the Basic Law. In this respect that ‘natural’ approach applies which, as a special aspect of this section, concerns the scope and limitations of parents’ responsibilities (cf. Dreher, Basic Law Vol. 1 1996, Art. 6, marginal note No. 95). There can be no collision between parental rights and children’s rights where a child is incapable of being aware of these on account of its lack of rational/intellectual maturity. In such a case no conflict with the parental right to educate can arise. On the other hand, if the educational aim of engendering a self-determining and selfresponsible personality is (partially) fulfilled, the aspect of parental responsibility contained in Art. 6, section 2, page 1 of the Basic Law is no longer applicable (Dreher, see above). The parental right to educate serves to promote the welfare of the child and is accompanied by obligations; thus it must, on account of its purpose and character, be surrendered when the child has reached an age at which it has gained sufficient maturity to judge its own life situation and be legally responsible for itself. As a right which is oriented to the child and the development of its personality it represents a part of its nature that it should become increasingly superfluous and immaterial according to the child’s growing maturity (cf. Decisions of the FCC 59, 360).
In view of this it is irrelevant as to whether the constitutionality of paragraph 60, section 4 of the (common law) Bremen School Statute is questionable insofar as it assigns the responsibility for fulfilling children’s obligation to attend school to the agents responsible for their education, i.e. also in respect of adult children as the case may be. Certainly in the case of the plaintiffs’ children aged seven and nine respectively the parental authority assigned by Art. 6, section 2, page 1 of the Basic Law includes the right to determine unilaterally for them. The very word ‘education’ (original: ‘Erziehung’, includes wider sense of upbringing) – when viewed without ideological ballast – constitutes ‘determination from without’ simply according to its basic meaning. The formal conflict between parental rights (and duties) and children’s rights is resolved by the constitution unilaterally in favour of the rights of the parents. If the will of the parents is in accordance with the child’s welfare it enjoys the basic support of the legal framework governing parental rights. To the same extent, the will of the children carries no weight (cf. commentary to the Bonn Basic Law, see above, marginal note 141) (Presumably the Bonn Commentary to the Basic Law is intended.) Thus it behoves the plaintiffs, who have on their own account an open attitude to school as an institution, but favour homeschooling for their children, to do justice to their responsibilities and for the sake of their children’s welfare (see above) to ensure their attendance at school. This does not entail an extraordinary hardship which could be at variance with the fulfilment of the obligation to attend school. This will be addressed further later (see 2.).
It is also basically to be expected of the plaintiffs that they should react appropriately to the educative necessity resulting from the children’s lacking ability to judge the situation and should insist on their attending school. This does not necessarily involve compulsion. The parental right to educate, which with its attendant obligations should serve exclusively to promote the welfare of the child (see above), does not give the parents freedom of choice in the sense of unfettered self-determination (cf. Decisions of the FCC 59, 360), but rather aims to encourage family discussion of matters of parental concern on a level suited to the child’s stage of development with a view to achieving a consensus (cf. also para. 1626, section 2, German Civil Code). The idea that this should not be possible in the case of the plaintiffs’ seven and nine year old children appears unrealistic. Insofar as the children have not been (subconsciously as the case may be) influenced to boycott the school in order to oblige the parents, it may be demanded of the latter to issue an energetic appeal. Also, in order to persuade them to attend school it should suffice to point out to the children what the parents may expect in terms of the coercion which has already been threatened (fines, substitutional coercible detention (‘Erzatzzwangshaft’) and other measures up to and including the withdrawal of their custodial rights. Furthermore, pupils who do not fulfil the obligation to attend school can, according to paragraph 64 of the Bremen School Statute, be forced to attend school. ‘Obliging’ parents who exercise indulgence towards their children can, objectively, certainly cause harm to them if they, for instance, fail to supervise the child’s school attendance sufficiently or fail to send it to school over a long period of time on account of a condition which they themselves have diagnosed (cf. commentary to the Bonn Basic Law, see above, marginal note No. 192) (Presumably the Bonn Commentary to the Basic Law is intended.) Finally, children of the age of the plaintiffs’ sons generally require (parental) authority which shows them where their limits are in order to acquire self-discipline. At that age they expect their parents to give them clear guidance and to intercede when conflicts arise. At the same time this means that the educational rights and duties of the parents specifically serve to protect the immature child from the disadvantageous results of a discharge of duties which has practically been put at its disposal.
As they admitted during the hearing, in exercising their rights to bring up their children in other areas of life the plaintiffs unquestioningly, as it were, insist on asserting their own wills against those of the children where this appears to be in their interests and do not thereby get caught up in an irresolvable moral conflict. Why this should be impossible in, of all things, an area of such importance for the children’s development as school remains obscure and suggests that the plaintiffs’ behaviour is influenced not only by the children’s welfare but perhaps also by the thought of presenting and promoting the possibility for individualised educational educational paths (homeschooling), which they consider to be the better form of education anyway, in a manner inviting much public attention. Be that as it may. (Possibly correct interpretation of mysterious sentence: Das mag aber letztlich auf sich beruhen.)
Thus it may be stated with certainty that the plaintiffs’ children are basically subject to the obligation to attend school (paras. 52 ff, Bremen School Statute) and that in order to fulfil this obligation they must attend a state or state recognised school in the State of Bremen (para. 55, section 1, Bremen School Statute). The obligation to attend school covers amongst other things regular attendance in classes (para. 55, section 7, page 1, Bremen School Statute) which the plaintiffs must ensure as a matter of principle on the basis of their commission to bring up their children.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Part 5 Grounds for the Decision
Grounds for the decision
The plaintiffs’ appeal is permissible but unfounded.
The plaintiffs’ children have the obligation to attend school (1.).
The plaintiffs have no legal right to have their children released from the general obligation to
attend school (2.).
1.
The plaintiffs cannot, as they claim, choose freely between their children’s obligation to attend school and the home education which they favour. Rather, the children are subject to the general obligation to attend school. This follows immediately as a consequence of Article 30 of the State Constitution of the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen. According to this a general obligation to attend school applies. Further details are laid down in the Bremen School Statute.
This is not contrary to the right of the parents to provide for the care and education of their children as guaranteed in Article 6, section 3, page 1 of the Basic Constitutional Law (Grundgesetz), for the latter is subject to limitations which are themselves stipulated in the
Basic Constitutional Law. This includes the obligation to provide for education which is assigned to the State in Article 7, section 1 (cf. Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court (DFCC) 34, 165; 93,1). As a result of this the general obligation to attend school which has been enacted with a view to realising this state obligation represents a generally acceptable constraint. Individual conflicts arising between the parental right to educate and the educational obligation of the state are to be resolved by means of consideration according to the principles of practical concordance (praktische Konkordanz, German legal phrase) (cf. DFCC 93, 1). However, the state may also pursue its own educational ends independently of the parents (cf. DFCC 47, 47), although it must display neutrality and tolerance for parents’ educational ideas and may not exercise particular influence in favour of any given political, ideological or general philosophical trend.
The general obligation to attend school serves as a suitable and useful instrument for achieving the legitimate aim of realising the state education obligation. The assigned obligation is not confined to the transfer of knowledge and bringing up children to become independent personalities. It is also concerned with the making of citizens of the state who take part in the democratic processes of a pluralistic society with responsibility and equality.
Social competence in communication with those who think differently, practised tolerance, powers of self-assertion and the ability to defend minority views can be more effectively put
into practice if contacts with society in general and the differing views to be found in it are made not only occasionally, but are part of the daily experience which comes with regular school attendance (cf. FCC, B. v. 31.05.2006, 2 BvR 1693/04).
Furthermore, the obligation to attend school represents a reasonable measure in view of the
positive effects which are to be expected as a result of its being exercised for the state educational assignment and the interests of the common good which form its background. The
general public has a justified interest in counteracting not only religiously or philosophically
oriented parallel societies, but also certain educationally oriented groups whose obvious intention is to undermine the general obligation to attend school, e.g. by registering in an (international) private correspondence school or by establishing international or regional
educational networks, to deprofessionalise the education system and to cut themselves off
from society. (Translator’s note to the above: The original sentence was even more chaotic
than this (being a syntactical catastrophe); I have tried to convey the exact sense, if that’s the
right word.) In this regard it is irrelevant that with homeschooling the children experience a
large amount of familial attention and in respect of a number of school subjects in the primary
stage, for instance, receive an adequate, or even in the opinion of the plaintiffs a better education. The final determinant is the objectively assessed welfare of the child (cf. Bonn
Commentary to the Basic Law, dated 10.96, marginal note 195), which the plaintiffs justifiably claim to be able to judge. In this respect the FCC (E34, 165) refers to the parents as the ‘natural advocates’ for their children’s education. However, the plaintiffs fail to take into account that the children’s pleasant learning experiences at home do not alter the fact that their sons must reckon with serious disadvantages in the later course of their lives because their educationally motivated exclusion from the state school system may be expected to prevent them from acquiring the competence to assert themselves under ‘normal’ social conditions, so that they can only live according to fixed rules in a small, narrowly enclosed parallel society (thus Niehues/Rux, Schulrecht (School Law), 4th edition, marginal No. 321).
As a result they would be educated to a state of immaturity, which is not compatible with the
personality envisaged by the Basic Law and which therefore cannot be justified. In addition, it
is doubtful whether the plaintiffs are at all capable of providing their children by means of
homeschooling with the knowledge and skills which section 20 of the Bremen School Statute
prescribes for the schools subsequent to the primary stage (secondary school, comprehensive
school, grammar school) (in respect of state and state recognised alternative schools). The plaintiffs have said that they wish to cross such bridges as they come and take decisions on a
case-by-case basis.
The plaintiffs’ appeal is permissible but unfounded.
The plaintiffs’ children have the obligation to attend school (1.).
The plaintiffs have no legal right to have their children released from the general obligation to
attend school (2.).
1.
The plaintiffs cannot, as they claim, choose freely between their children’s obligation to attend school and the home education which they favour. Rather, the children are subject to the general obligation to attend school. This follows immediately as a consequence of Article 30 of the State Constitution of the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen. According to this a general obligation to attend school applies. Further details are laid down in the Bremen School Statute.
This is not contrary to the right of the parents to provide for the care and education of their children as guaranteed in Article 6, section 3, page 1 of the Basic Constitutional Law (Grundgesetz), for the latter is subject to limitations which are themselves stipulated in the
Basic Constitutional Law. This includes the obligation to provide for education which is assigned to the State in Article 7, section 1 (cf. Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court (DFCC) 34, 165; 93,1). As a result of this the general obligation to attend school which has been enacted with a view to realising this state obligation represents a generally acceptable constraint. Individual conflicts arising between the parental right to educate and the educational obligation of the state are to be resolved by means of consideration according to the principles of practical concordance (praktische Konkordanz, German legal phrase) (cf. DFCC 93, 1). However, the state may also pursue its own educational ends independently of the parents (cf. DFCC 47, 47), although it must display neutrality and tolerance for parents’ educational ideas and may not exercise particular influence in favour of any given political, ideological or general philosophical trend.
The general obligation to attend school serves as a suitable and useful instrument for achieving the legitimate aim of realising the state education obligation. The assigned obligation is not confined to the transfer of knowledge and bringing up children to become independent personalities. It is also concerned with the making of citizens of the state who take part in the democratic processes of a pluralistic society with responsibility and equality.
Social competence in communication with those who think differently, practised tolerance, powers of self-assertion and the ability to defend minority views can be more effectively put
into practice if contacts with society in general and the differing views to be found in it are made not only occasionally, but are part of the daily experience which comes with regular school attendance (cf. FCC, B. v. 31.05.2006, 2 BvR 1693/04).
Furthermore, the obligation to attend school represents a reasonable measure in view of the
positive effects which are to be expected as a result of its being exercised for the state educational assignment and the interests of the common good which form its background. The
general public has a justified interest in counteracting not only religiously or philosophically
oriented parallel societies, but also certain educationally oriented groups whose obvious intention is to undermine the general obligation to attend school, e.g. by registering in an (international) private correspondence school or by establishing international or regional
educational networks, to deprofessionalise the education system and to cut themselves off
from society. (Translator’s note to the above: The original sentence was even more chaotic
than this (being a syntactical catastrophe); I have tried to convey the exact sense, if that’s the
right word.) In this regard it is irrelevant that with homeschooling the children experience a
large amount of familial attention and in respect of a number of school subjects in the primary
stage, for instance, receive an adequate, or even in the opinion of the plaintiffs a better education. The final determinant is the objectively assessed welfare of the child (cf. Bonn
Commentary to the Basic Law, dated 10.96, marginal note 195), which the plaintiffs justifiably claim to be able to judge. In this respect the FCC (E34, 165) refers to the parents as the ‘natural advocates’ for their children’s education. However, the plaintiffs fail to take into account that the children’s pleasant learning experiences at home do not alter the fact that their sons must reckon with serious disadvantages in the later course of their lives because their educationally motivated exclusion from the state school system may be expected to prevent them from acquiring the competence to assert themselves under ‘normal’ social conditions, so that they can only live according to fixed rules in a small, narrowly enclosed parallel society (thus Niehues/Rux, Schulrecht (School Law), 4th edition, marginal No. 321).
As a result they would be educated to a state of immaturity, which is not compatible with the
personality envisaged by the Basic Law and which therefore cannot be justified. In addition, it
is doubtful whether the plaintiffs are at all capable of providing their children by means of
homeschooling with the knowledge and skills which section 20 of the Bremen School Statute
prescribes for the schools subsequent to the primary stage (secondary school, comprehensive
school, grammar school) (in respect of state and state recognised alternative schools). The plaintiffs have said that they wish to cross such bridges as they come and take decisions on a
case-by-case basis.
Court Judgement Part 4
The plaintiffs apply to oblige the defendant to release their under-age children Thomas and Moritz from the obligation to attend a state school or state recognised school in the Federal City
State of Bremen for reasons complying with section 57 of the Bremen School Statute and also to rescind the decisions of 21.03.2006 and 12.07.2006.
The defendant applies to have the plaintiffs’ application rejected. The defendant responds to the plaintiffs’ demands with reference to the disputed decisions.
Within the framework of a process to compel school attendance (case No. 7 V 2003/06) which is being pursued parallel to the present appeal the plaintiffs and the defendant have reached an arbitrational cooperation agreement, effective from 13.09.2006, in order to ensure that the education and development of the two children may take place in a form which is supervised and monitored by the school authorities and success orientated. The aim is to synchronise the home learning with the school learning aims so that it remains possible for the children to enter a standard school. In this respect working according to the concept of the Clonlara School is regarded by the Senator for Education and Science as supplementary furtherance. The basis for the educational work with the plaintiffs’ children is the Bremen School Statute and the curriculum framework for the primary stage with the standards prescribed for the end of the 4th class or end of the year 6 respectively.
The (School) Authority file (24-12-111/7) was available to the court. Its content constituted a
part of the hearing, insofar as the decision is based upon it.
State of Bremen for reasons complying with section 57 of the Bremen School Statute and also to rescind the decisions of 21.03.2006 and 12.07.2006.
The defendant applies to have the plaintiffs’ application rejected. The defendant responds to the plaintiffs’ demands with reference to the disputed decisions.
Within the framework of a process to compel school attendance (case No. 7 V 2003/06) which is being pursued parallel to the present appeal the plaintiffs and the defendant have reached an arbitrational cooperation agreement, effective from 13.09.2006, in order to ensure that the education and development of the two children may take place in a form which is supervised and monitored by the school authorities and success orientated. The aim is to synchronise the home learning with the school learning aims so that it remains possible for the children to enter a standard school. In this respect working according to the concept of the Clonlara School is regarded by the Senator for Education and Science as supplementary furtherance. The basis for the educational work with the plaintiffs’ children is the Bremen School Statute and the curriculum framework for the primary stage with the standards prescribed for the end of the 4th class or end of the year 6 respectively.
The (School) Authority file (24-12-111/7) was available to the court. Its content constituted a
part of the hearing, insofar as the decision is based upon it.
Court Judgement Part 3
On 20.07.2006 an appeal was lodged against this refusal.
In addition to their previous statements in the original application and the appeal the plaintiffs
pointed out that even taking account of the arguments of the other side, sending the children
to a state school would be injurious for them. This was borne out by the intention expressed
by the school authorities to have the children examined by the school doctor to see whether
there was any medical reason why they should not attend school. Further, the school
authorities had not exploited their powers of discretion in respect of agreeing to an exception
to the rule, as was confirmed by their statement that they had never made an exception for a
pupil in the primary school section. Finally, the plaintiffs protested against the implication
that they had exercised an ideologically motivated ‘formative influence’ on their children
which would throw an unfavourable light on the institution school. Rather, on account of
major psycho-somatic detractions on the part of their children they had begun to question
whether an absolute legal obligation to attend school can be allowed to have priority over the
obvious welfare of the child. On an international level the German legal interpretation of the
right to education in the form of an obligation to attend a state (public) school which should,
if necessary, be enforced by coercion represents a puzzling anomaly. Therefore the plaintiffs
had taken account of the international legal situation in formulating their application. This
does not mean a general rejection of the institution school, but rather the freedom of choice
which is self-evident in most developed states today.
Furthermore the plaintiffs protest against the implication that their children may have
(behavioural) abnormalities, personal instabilities and social integration difficulties simply
because they did not go to school, but wished to learn more effectively at home. In most other
countries, including neighbouring countries such as Austria, Denmark, the Czech Republic,
Poland, Belgium, France, Italy, Sweden, Portugal and Finland, this desire is not only accepted
as normal, but legally guaranteed or even expressly included in the constitution (Ireland,
Spain).
The school authorities’ argumentation was based implicitly on the unproven assumption that
attendance at school is generally better suited for the education of children and especially
better able to secure their social competence than education and knowledge assimilation at
home or from home.
Article 6 of the constitution recognises parents’ status as independent agents responsible for
bringing up their children. For the sake of a child’s welfare neither parents nor a school as
responsible agents should be allowed to alienate the child against the respective other side nor
actively agitate against it. Parents and state can only fulfil their common educational tasks by
working together constructively. Conflicting interests are to be balanced out in way that is fair
to all parties and as favourable as possible. The common task is to promote the development
of the child so that it can become a responsible personality within the social framework.
Insofar as the parents do this, thus fulfilling their constitutional obligation, the ‘other
educational agent’, in this case the school, may not be allowed to force its own methods upon
the parents. This would have the effect of turning the relationship of equal standing between
the agents into one of higher and lower priorities. This is, however, in conflict with the
expressed aim of the constitution.
In addition to their previous statements in the original application and the appeal the plaintiffs
pointed out that even taking account of the arguments of the other side, sending the children
to a state school would be injurious for them. This was borne out by the intention expressed
by the school authorities to have the children examined by the school doctor to see whether
there was any medical reason why they should not attend school. Further, the school
authorities had not exploited their powers of discretion in respect of agreeing to an exception
to the rule, as was confirmed by their statement that they had never made an exception for a
pupil in the primary school section. Finally, the plaintiffs protested against the implication
that they had exercised an ideologically motivated ‘formative influence’ on their children
which would throw an unfavourable light on the institution school. Rather, on account of
major psycho-somatic detractions on the part of their children they had begun to question
whether an absolute legal obligation to attend school can be allowed to have priority over the
obvious welfare of the child. On an international level the German legal interpretation of the
right to education in the form of an obligation to attend a state (public) school which should,
if necessary, be enforced by coercion represents a puzzling anomaly. Therefore the plaintiffs
had taken account of the international legal situation in formulating their application. This
does not mean a general rejection of the institution school, but rather the freedom of choice
which is self-evident in most developed states today.
Furthermore the plaintiffs protest against the implication that their children may have
(behavioural) abnormalities, personal instabilities and social integration difficulties simply
because they did not go to school, but wished to learn more effectively at home. In most other
countries, including neighbouring countries such as Austria, Denmark, the Czech Republic,
Poland, Belgium, France, Italy, Sweden, Portugal and Finland, this desire is not only accepted
as normal, but legally guaranteed or even expressly included in the constitution (Ireland,
Spain).
The school authorities’ argumentation was based implicitly on the unproven assumption that
attendance at school is generally better suited for the education of children and especially
better able to secure their social competence than education and knowledge assimilation at
home or from home.
Article 6 of the constitution recognises parents’ status as independent agents responsible for
bringing up their children. For the sake of a child’s welfare neither parents nor a school as
responsible agents should be allowed to alienate the child against the respective other side nor
actively agitate against it. Parents and state can only fulfil their common educational tasks by
working together constructively. Conflicting interests are to be balanced out in way that is fair
to all parties and as favourable as possible. The common task is to promote the development
of the child so that it can become a responsible personality within the social framework.
Insofar as the parents do this, thus fulfilling their constitutional obligation, the ‘other
educational agent’, in this case the school, may not be allowed to force its own methods upon
the parents. This would have the effect of turning the relationship of equal standing between
the agents into one of higher and lower priorities. This is, however, in conflict with the
expressed aim of the constitution.
Court Judgement Part 2
In a statement dated 21.03.2006 the Senator for Education and Science rejected the parents’
application to have their children released from the legal obligation to attend school in Bremen: The educational programme of the Clonlara School for children not attending school was not admissible as a means of fulfilling the obligation to attend school. In Germany – as to some extent is the case in other countries – there is not merely an obligation to dispense education, but also for children to attend school. Teaching at home can only be considered in exceptional situations such as where parents are working abroad or for children who cannot be transported on account of handicap or illness (‘Krankenunterricht’, approx. ‘teaching for indisposed persons’). But even in these cases the curriculum prescribed by the state should provide the basis for the teaching. Furthermore it should be borne in mind that learning in school is not merely a matter of increasing one’s fund of knowledge but involves other learning experiences with other people. A learning process is involved which is not concerned only with fact learning, but comprehension in common learning. In this respect teamwork and cooperative working on a common task is important. In this way each child experiences certain limitations, must learn acceptance (tolerance of frustration) and learn to accept others in their differentness (tolerance). These are important prerequisites for being able to take on responsibility for oneself and for others in future.
The plaintiffs appealed against this rejection, amongst other things with the argument that
homeschooling children develop a degree of social maturity above the average and as adults
they display a significantly higher level of involvement in social matters than the average, e.g.
in that they vote more often at elections, do more voluntary work and become more politically
involved. This has (according to the plaintiffs) been scientifically confirmed in large scale studies. On the other hand there is no evidence to suggest that children specifically and exclusively receive furtherance in respect of social skills and team competence in state school classes. On the contrary, it is generally deplored that state schools are increasingly subject to the ‘law of the strongest’ (‘Faustrecht’) and that the children’s social behaviour tends to be determined by the lowest common denominator. Especially children who are used to conflicts being resolved at home through discussion and without resort to violence learn that this approach in no way protects them from brutal attacks from other children who have not learned it themselves.
Their sons’ social behaviour, including their attitude to people from other social and cultural backgrounds, did not improve during their time attending school, but on the contrary it became significantly worse. Since then it is once again of the highest standard. Also, their children are sufficiently confronted with the fact that in the rest of the world and in Bremen things are not as peaceful as they are at home by their exposure to public places, bus journeys, in the choir, from newspapers, radio and television. It is not, however, necessary to force them to be exposed to this violence in their immediate surroundings in order to become aware of this and take it into account.
The appeal was rejected. In his rejection statement of 12.07.2006, which will be referred to
and amplified later, the Senator for Education and Science stated amongst other things that an
exception in respect of school attendance for the plaintiffs’ children did not come into question. The children’s purported or real refusal to go to school could not be accepted as sufficient grounds. Whereas there was considerable doubt as to whether they were not subject to their parents’ formative influence, even an authentic psychologically or psycho-somatically initiated refusal would not represent a reason to release them from the obligation to attend school. State schools are regularly confronted with conspicuous behaviour, sometimes of an extreme nature, on the part of children, including so-called school phobia. State schools are equipped to attend to such children with appropriate pedagogic measures, to stabilise them in their personalities and to integrate them socially. This succeeds so much the better when the parents cooperate with the school.
application to have their children released from the legal obligation to attend school in Bremen: The educational programme of the Clonlara School for children not attending school was not admissible as a means of fulfilling the obligation to attend school. In Germany – as to some extent is the case in other countries – there is not merely an obligation to dispense education, but also for children to attend school. Teaching at home can only be considered in exceptional situations such as where parents are working abroad or for children who cannot be transported on account of handicap or illness (‘Krankenunterricht’, approx. ‘teaching for indisposed persons’). But even in these cases the curriculum prescribed by the state should provide the basis for the teaching. Furthermore it should be borne in mind that learning in school is not merely a matter of increasing one’s fund of knowledge but involves other learning experiences with other people. A learning process is involved which is not concerned only with fact learning, but comprehension in common learning. In this respect teamwork and cooperative working on a common task is important. In this way each child experiences certain limitations, must learn acceptance (tolerance of frustration) and learn to accept others in their differentness (tolerance). These are important prerequisites for being able to take on responsibility for oneself and for others in future.
The plaintiffs appealed against this rejection, amongst other things with the argument that
homeschooling children develop a degree of social maturity above the average and as adults
they display a significantly higher level of involvement in social matters than the average, e.g.
in that they vote more often at elections, do more voluntary work and become more politically
involved. This has (according to the plaintiffs) been scientifically confirmed in large scale studies. On the other hand there is no evidence to suggest that children specifically and exclusively receive furtherance in respect of social skills and team competence in state school classes. On the contrary, it is generally deplored that state schools are increasingly subject to the ‘law of the strongest’ (‘Faustrecht’) and that the children’s social behaviour tends to be determined by the lowest common denominator. Especially children who are used to conflicts being resolved at home through discussion and without resort to violence learn that this approach in no way protects them from brutal attacks from other children who have not learned it themselves.
Their sons’ social behaviour, including their attitude to people from other social and cultural backgrounds, did not improve during their time attending school, but on the contrary it became significantly worse. Since then it is once again of the highest standard. Also, their children are sufficiently confronted with the fact that in the rest of the world and in Bremen things are not as peaceful as they are at home by their exposure to public places, bus journeys, in the choir, from newspapers, radio and television. It is not, however, necessary to force them to be exposed to this violence in their immediate surroundings in order to become aware of this and take it into account.
The appeal was rejected. In his rejection statement of 12.07.2006, which will be referred to
and amplified later, the Senator for Education and Science stated amongst other things that an
exception in respect of school attendance for the plaintiffs’ children did not come into question. The children’s purported or real refusal to go to school could not be accepted as sufficient grounds. Whereas there was considerable doubt as to whether they were not subject to their parents’ formative influence, even an authentic psychologically or psycho-somatically initiated refusal would not represent a reason to release them from the obligation to attend school. State schools are regularly confronted with conspicuous behaviour, sometimes of an extreme nature, on the part of children, including so-called school phobia. State schools are equipped to attend to such children with appropriate pedagogic measures, to stabilise them in their personalities and to integrate them socially. This succeeds so much the better when the parents cooperate with the school.
Court ruling against German Homeschoolers Part 1
I have received an English translation of the recent court judgement in the case of my friends, the Neubronners in Bremen. The judgement îs very long, so I'm breaking it up into smaller posts. Don't get too excited when you read the first parts, because it's just a summary of my friends' case.
Judgement
In respect of the Administrative Court case
(Neubronner, plaintiffs) vs City of Bremen (defendant)
[+ names of legal representatives etc.]
the 7th Chamber of the Administrative Court of the Free City of Bremen, represented by
[names of judges] has decreed that
the plaintiffs’ case shall be rejected.
Costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs. Appeal against this judgement is permitted.
Facts of the case
The plaintiffs require the defendant to release their children from the obligation to attend
school (‘Schulpflicht’). They wish to educate (‘unterrichten’, literally ‘teach’) their children at
home according to an alternative learning concept (so-called ‘homeschooling’).
The plaintiffs are the parents / have the rights/duties to bring up (‘Erziehungsberechtigte’)
their two sons Moritz and Thomas, nine and seven years old. In June 2005 the family returned
to Bremen from the Allgäu [South Germany], where the plaintiffs had been founder members
of a group involved in starting up a free Montessori school. There, Moritz was registered at the primary school in Borchshöhe as a child required to attend school (‘schulpflichtig’). He had predominantly learned at home until that time. At the beginning of the school year 2005/2006 Thomas was enrolled at the same school, having become of an age requiring him to attend school as well. Both children attended school regularly at first, but stopped doing so after about ten days because they – the children – had expressed the wish to be taught at home. According to the plaintiffs the children developed psycho-somatic symptoms during their attendance at school, including belly and headaches, nightmares and heart complaints.
On account of this their paediatrician declared them to be ill. At this point the plaintiffs decided to permit their sons to take part in so-called ‘homeschooling’. Attempts to reach an understanding with, amongst others, the education authorities were unsuccessful, because the
authorities insisted that the aim of synchronisation of the learning at home with the school
curriculum should be to make it possible for the children gradually to take part in normal school. At the end of October / beginning of November 2005 the plaintiffs removed their children from the school, giving as reason “a move to Ireland”, and registered them at the Clonlara School in Jewett/Ireland for the school year 2005/2006. This school is an international private (correspondence) school with a special programme for pupils who are educated at home according to the requirements of the regional school authorities. The plaintiffs planned at first to spend several periods in Ireland as a family, although not to move there permanently. However, the school authorities made this a requirement in order to free the children from the obligation to attend school. This was not possible in view of, amongst other things, the economic situation of the plaintiffs. Thus they registered their sons at the Schönebeck primary school in Bremen on 08.12.2005. Since then the children have practically not gone to the school at all.
The plaintiffs have applied (? on 18.01.2006 – sentence incomplete) to the school inspectorate
to have their children released from the obligation to attend school according to paragraph 57,
section 2 of the Bremen School Statute. This application is founded upon a moral conflict as
perceived by the parents. They have an open attitude towards school, as is borne out by their
involvement in founding a Montessori school. They in no way prevent their children from attending school and have tried by means of attending classes themselves as well as talks with
the children and teachers to engender a situation in which it would be possible for the children
to decide for themselves to attend school. Attendance at school produces, according to the
parents, a state in which the children feel under negative pressure and to which they react with
psycho-somatic symptoms. Their children feel troubled by other pupils and their behaviour;
they wish to be able to learn in a self-determining manner without this scholastic environment. As parents, they cannot exercise psychological or physical pressure on their children, particularly in view of the fact that the law allows for exceptions to the obligation to attend school. Children are not to be seen as passive objects to be educated. Rather, children and their parents have the right to choose their education as they see fit. Their sons can learn better and more effectively at home than in state or recognised private schools. This is borne out by examples from other countries where homeschooling is accepted.
Judgement
In respect of the Administrative Court case
(Neubronner, plaintiffs) vs City of Bremen (defendant)
[+ names of legal representatives etc.]
the 7th Chamber of the Administrative Court of the Free City of Bremen, represented by
[names of judges] has decreed that
the plaintiffs’ case shall be rejected.
Costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs. Appeal against this judgement is permitted.
Facts of the case
The plaintiffs require the defendant to release their children from the obligation to attend
school (‘Schulpflicht’). They wish to educate (‘unterrichten’, literally ‘teach’) their children at
home according to an alternative learning concept (so-called ‘homeschooling’).
The plaintiffs are the parents / have the rights/duties to bring up (‘Erziehungsberechtigte’)
their two sons Moritz and Thomas, nine and seven years old. In June 2005 the family returned
to Bremen from the Allgäu [South Germany], where the plaintiffs had been founder members
of a group involved in starting up a free Montessori school. There, Moritz was registered at the primary school in Borchshöhe as a child required to attend school (‘schulpflichtig’). He had predominantly learned at home until that time. At the beginning of the school year 2005/2006 Thomas was enrolled at the same school, having become of an age requiring him to attend school as well. Both children attended school regularly at first, but stopped doing so after about ten days because they – the children – had expressed the wish to be taught at home. According to the plaintiffs the children developed psycho-somatic symptoms during their attendance at school, including belly and headaches, nightmares and heart complaints.
On account of this their paediatrician declared them to be ill. At this point the plaintiffs decided to permit their sons to take part in so-called ‘homeschooling’. Attempts to reach an understanding with, amongst others, the education authorities were unsuccessful, because the
authorities insisted that the aim of synchronisation of the learning at home with the school
curriculum should be to make it possible for the children gradually to take part in normal school. At the end of October / beginning of November 2005 the plaintiffs removed their children from the school, giving as reason “a move to Ireland”, and registered them at the Clonlara School in Jewett/Ireland for the school year 2005/2006. This school is an international private (correspondence) school with a special programme for pupils who are educated at home according to the requirements of the regional school authorities. The plaintiffs planned at first to spend several periods in Ireland as a family, although not to move there permanently. However, the school authorities made this a requirement in order to free the children from the obligation to attend school. This was not possible in view of, amongst other things, the economic situation of the plaintiffs. Thus they registered their sons at the Schönebeck primary school in Bremen on 08.12.2005. Since then the children have practically not gone to the school at all.
The plaintiffs have applied (? on 18.01.2006 – sentence incomplete) to the school inspectorate
to have their children released from the obligation to attend school according to paragraph 57,
section 2 of the Bremen School Statute. This application is founded upon a moral conflict as
perceived by the parents. They have an open attitude towards school, as is borne out by their
involvement in founding a Montessori school. They in no way prevent their children from attending school and have tried by means of attending classes themselves as well as talks with
the children and teachers to engender a situation in which it would be possible for the children
to decide for themselves to attend school. Attendance at school produces, according to the
parents, a state in which the children feel under negative pressure and to which they react with
psycho-somatic symptoms. Their children feel troubled by other pupils and their behaviour;
they wish to be able to learn in a self-determining manner without this scholastic environment. As parents, they cannot exercise psychological or physical pressure on their children, particularly in view of the fact that the law allows for exceptions to the obligation to attend school. Children are not to be seen as passive objects to be educated. Rather, children and their parents have the right to choose their education as they see fit. Their sons can learn better and more effectively at home than in state or recognised private schools. This is borne out by examples from other countries where homeschooling is accepted.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
These poor unsocialised homeschoolers
I took the kids swimming today and lo and behold there were FIVE boys there who knew my poor unsocialised son. He teamed up with a couple of them and had a great time.
Rowena has been watching a replay on TV of Domino Day 2004. Looks like I'm going to have to invest in a few boxes of plastic domino stones.
Rowena has been watching a replay on TV of Domino Day 2004. Looks like I'm going to have to invest in a few boxes of plastic domino stones.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
The German Constitutional Court....
obviously believes in fairytales. In a judgement earlier this year, they stated...
"...social competence in mixing with people of different points of view, practising tolerance, assertiveness and self-assertion of a conviction which is different to the mainstream can be better exercised when contacts with the society and its different perceptions do not just happen occasionally but are part of the everyday experience as connected with school attendance."
The European Court of Human Rights also has the same problem. Earlier this year, in refusing to take on the Konrad family's appeal, the judges stated
"In the present case the court notes that the German authorities have carefully reasoned their decisions and mainly stressed the fact that not only the acquisition of knowledge but also the integration into and first experience with society are important goals of primary school education. The German courts found that those objectives cannot be equally met by home education even if it allowed children to acquire the same standard of knowledge as provided for by primary school education. The Court considers this presumption as not being erroneous..."
Methinks that some people needs to do their homework.
Happy new Year. My resolution is to educate some judges about homeschooling.
"...social competence in mixing with people of different points of view, practising tolerance, assertiveness and self-assertion of a conviction which is different to the mainstream can be better exercised when contacts with the society and its different perceptions do not just happen occasionally but are part of the everyday experience as connected with school attendance."
The European Court of Human Rights also has the same problem. Earlier this year, in refusing to take on the Konrad family's appeal, the judges stated
"In the present case the court notes that the German authorities have carefully reasoned their decisions and mainly stressed the fact that not only the acquisition of knowledge but also the integration into and first experience with society are important goals of primary school education. The German courts found that those objectives cannot be equally met by home education even if it allowed children to acquire the same standard of knowledge as provided for by primary school education. The Court considers this presumption as not being erroneous..."
Methinks that some people needs to do their homework.
Happy new Year. My resolution is to educate some judges about homeschooling.
At last....
...The return of Socialisation Quote of the Day
From Time Magazine
A yawning chasm (with an emphasis on yawning) separates the world inside the schoolhouse from the world outside.
From Time Magazine
A yawning chasm (with an emphasis on yawning) separates the world inside the schoolhouse from the world outside.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Movie Mincemeat
We went to see the Eragon movie last night and I reckon that it is a good argument for waiting till you've seen the movie before you read the book. I was totally disillusioned by it.
I can understand that Christopher Paolini's book is not translatable into a 2 hour long screen format. However, the makers of the film managed to take all the fat and most of the nutrition out of his wonderful epic plot, reconstituted it and squeezed it through a mincer. I enjoyed a lot of things about the film, but as far as the plot was concerned, yeugh!
I can understand that Christopher Paolini's book is not translatable into a 2 hour long screen format. However, the makers of the film managed to take all the fat and most of the nutrition out of his wonderful epic plot, reconstituted it and squeezed it through a mincer. I enjoyed a lot of things about the film, but as far as the plot was concerned, yeugh!
Monday, December 25, 2006
The web of lies grows....
This eye-opening article has appeared on the website of the German embassy in Ottawa. The way the German authorities create fabrications to malign homeschoolers in Germany is no longer a surprise to me (see my previous post).
I wrote them a letter pointing out some of their whoppers. By the way, these are the same people who are quite happy to educate their children at home through the Deutsche Fernschule (and I'm sure some of them are doing so).
I'll quote the article, because I have a feeling that it won't be around for long. My response to them follows.
Home schooling versus the German public school system
In Germany education is subject to provincial ("Laender") and not federal law. Generally, school attendance is obligatory in all provinces for children of school age. Parents are obliged to send their children to either public or private schools.
Schools must be approved by the competent authorities and may be run by the province, congregations (Christian, Jewish or other) or private institutions. Like in most other European countries, home schooling is not an option.
The German system of obligatory school attendance has a long tradition and it has proven to be successful. It ensures that all children's intellectual needs are met. Apart from that, it provides children with valuable experiences in regards to social interaction in groups, including contact with peers from different social or religious sections of society.
Furthermore, given recent world events, general school attendance is seen by parts of the German public as a means of protection from religious fundamentalism. Home schooling might allow religious fanatics to indoctrinate children in uncontrollable ways. In Germany children can attend religious education of their religious denomination in public or private schools.
As Germany is - in contrast to Canada – relatively small and densely populated, children are usually able to reach the nearest town and their school without difficulties.
Not sending your children to school is an infringement in Germany, sanctioned by a fine. Continuous and persistent violations constitute a criminal offence and may lead to imprisonment.
Concerning the recent legal cases in Germany, there have been long negotiations between the involved families and the Provincial Ministry of Education, which are still pending. The families in question have so far not been willing to accept testing of the students' performance or the many constructive proposals made by the province. These proposals included the opening of a private school, that would take into account the childrens' religious beliefs - more so than at a public school.
I wrote (at 6am after 5 hours of sleep, so excuse the repetition)
I have looked at your website and read the commentary on home education
in Germany. I think that you should fix up some of the comments, which
are patently false.
You state "Like in most other European countries, home schooling is not
an option." Germany is the only EU country (other than a couple of Swiss
cantons) where homeschooling is not an option.
"The German system of obligatory school attendance...and it has proven
to be successful. It ensures that all children's intellectual needs are
met. "
This statement is not borne out by the Pisa Study, the Rütli school and
other "Brennpunkt" schools, school shootings such as the Erfurt one and
the more recent one.
"The families in question have so far not been willing to accept testing
of the students' performance".
In fact most of the families in question have offered the authorities
the opportunity to test their children. The authorities are not
interested in taking up this offer, as all they are interested in is
that the children are sitting behind a desk in a school during school
hours. The Neubronners in Bremen offered the authorities this
opportunity and it was only after massive TV coverage (including an
interview on Stern TV with Gunther Jauch), that the authorities took
them up on this offer.
We are a home educating family in Niedersachsen. In our dealings with
the school authorities we have also stated that we would be happy to
have our children assessed but they have not taken us up on this.
We are foreigners living temporarily in Germany, but the German
authorities will not allow our children the opportunity to be educated
at home in their own language. Yet at the same time, a distance learning
institution
is
accredited by the German government to meet the needs of Germans
overseas who want to be educated, within their own four walls, in their
own language. This is in spite of the fact that the German authorities
insist that compulsory school attendance serves the best interests of
the child. At the very least this is hypocrisy, if not discrimination
against foreigners living temporarily in Germany.
I wrote them a letter pointing out some of their whoppers. By the way, these are the same people who are quite happy to educate their children at home through the Deutsche Fernschule (and I'm sure some of them are doing so).
I'll quote the article, because I have a feeling that it won't be around for long. My response to them follows.
Home schooling versus the German public school system
In Germany education is subject to provincial ("Laender") and not federal law. Generally, school attendance is obligatory in all provinces for children of school age. Parents are obliged to send their children to either public or private schools.
Schools must be approved by the competent authorities and may be run by the province, congregations (Christian, Jewish or other) or private institutions. Like in most other European countries, home schooling is not an option.
The German system of obligatory school attendance has a long tradition and it has proven to be successful. It ensures that all children's intellectual needs are met. Apart from that, it provides children with valuable experiences in regards to social interaction in groups, including contact with peers from different social or religious sections of society.
Furthermore, given recent world events, general school attendance is seen by parts of the German public as a means of protection from religious fundamentalism. Home schooling might allow religious fanatics to indoctrinate children in uncontrollable ways. In Germany children can attend religious education of their religious denomination in public or private schools.
As Germany is - in contrast to Canada – relatively small and densely populated, children are usually able to reach the nearest town and their school without difficulties.
Not sending your children to school is an infringement in Germany, sanctioned by a fine. Continuous and persistent violations constitute a criminal offence and may lead to imprisonment.
Concerning the recent legal cases in Germany, there have been long negotiations between the involved families and the Provincial Ministry of Education, which are still pending. The families in question have so far not been willing to accept testing of the students' performance or the many constructive proposals made by the province. These proposals included the opening of a private school, that would take into account the childrens' religious beliefs - more so than at a public school.
I wrote (at 6am after 5 hours of sleep, so excuse the repetition)
I have looked at your website and read the commentary on home education
in Germany. I think that you should fix up some of the comments, which
are patently false.
You state "Like in most other European countries, home schooling is not
an option." Germany is the only EU country (other than a couple of Swiss
cantons) where homeschooling is not an option.
"The German system of obligatory school attendance...and it has proven
to be successful. It ensures that all children's intellectual needs are
met. "
This statement is not borne out by the Pisa Study, the Rütli school and
other "Brennpunkt" schools, school shootings such as the Erfurt one and
the more recent one.
"The families in question have so far not been willing to accept testing
of the students' performance".
In fact most of the families in question have offered the authorities
the opportunity to test their children. The authorities are not
interested in taking up this offer, as all they are interested in is
that the children are sitting behind a desk in a school during school
hours. The Neubronners in Bremen offered the authorities this
opportunity and it was only after massive TV coverage (including an
interview on Stern TV with Gunther Jauch), that the authorities took
them up on this offer.
We are a home educating family in Niedersachsen. In our dealings with
the school authorities we have also stated that we would be happy to
have our children assessed but they have not taken us up on this.
We are foreigners living temporarily in Germany, but the German
authorities will not allow our children the opportunity to be educated
at home in their own language. Yet at the same time, a distance learning
institution
is
accredited by the German government to meet the needs of Germans
overseas who want to be educated, within their own four walls, in their
own language. This is in spite of the fact that the German authorities
insist that compulsory school attendance serves the best interests of
the child. At the very least this is hypocrisy, if not discrimination
against foreigners living temporarily in Germany.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Social Worker's report
I just' received a copy of the school authority's file on us from the lawyer and this report was in it from the social worker who visited us two ago.
Assessment
As far as the undersigned is concerned, the childrens' welfare is not in danger. The house was orderly and clean. The children made a normal impression. The mother is aware of the legal situation concerning compulsory schooling, but maintains that she can best help her children develop in her home. She believes that she is doing something good and therefore has no fear of future consequences. However, the mother does not recognise thereby that dealings with other children and the encouraging of joint activities are peers are part of normal child development. The interactions of the children are restricted to members of their own family. It is doubtful, that Robert could have contact with other children when he does not attend school.
BTW, Robbie was not present when she visited. Earlier in the report she states that he was with friends (which he was), creating a total contradiction. If she thought that the children were limited to interactions within the family, then how could he be with friends? Also she never asked me whether the children had interactions with other children (peers or otherwise). What she is stating here are her own conjectures. In fact, Robbie was, by this time, playing in the local football team (training twice a week, plus matches), going to chess, had just started karate and had at least 2 good friends, whom he saw regularly in the afternoons (boys about his age from the neighbourhood). If she had just asked me, I could have told her.
The comments which she makes are the normal gut reaction of anyone who meets homeschoolers for the first time, but to put them in a report as statements of fact,without checking whether they are based in fact is, in my opinion, at the very least, unprofessional. I am seething at the fact that my children were presented as social outcasts and am reminded of the Rudolph family, who were successfully portrayed by the authorities as isolationists who allowed their children no outside contacts (which was not the case at all).
Assessment
As far as the undersigned is concerned, the childrens' welfare is not in danger. The house was orderly and clean. The children made a normal impression. The mother is aware of the legal situation concerning compulsory schooling, but maintains that she can best help her children develop in her home. She believes that she is doing something good and therefore has no fear of future consequences. However, the mother does not recognise thereby that dealings with other children and the encouraging of joint activities are peers are part of normal child development. The interactions of the children are restricted to members of their own family. It is doubtful, that Robert could have contact with other children when he does not attend school.
BTW, Robbie was not present when she visited. Earlier in the report she states that he was with friends (which he was), creating a total contradiction. If she thought that the children were limited to interactions within the family, then how could he be with friends? Also she never asked me whether the children had interactions with other children (peers or otherwise). What she is stating here are her own conjectures. In fact, Robbie was, by this time, playing in the local football team (training twice a week, plus matches), going to chess, had just started karate and had at least 2 good friends, whom he saw regularly in the afternoons (boys about his age from the neighbourhood). If she had just asked me, I could have told her.
The comments which she makes are the normal gut reaction of anyone who meets homeschoolers for the first time, but to put them in a report as statements of fact,without checking whether they are based in fact is, in my opinion, at the very least, unprofessional. I am seething at the fact that my children were presented as social outcasts and am reminded of the Rudolph family, who were successfully portrayed by the authorities as isolationists who allowed their children no outside contacts (which was not the case at all).
Hypocrisy
We are foreigners living temporarily in Germany, but the German authorities will not allow our children the opportunity to be educated at home in their own language. Yet at the same time, a distance learning institution is accredited by the German government to meet the needs of Germans overseas who want to be educated, within their own four walls, in their own language. This is in spite of the fact that the German authorities insist that compulsory school attendance serves the best interests of the child. At the very least this is hypocrisy, if not discrimination against foreigners living temporarily in Germany.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)