The Neubronner case in Germany is an interesting one. At the moment, they are being required to pay 6,000 Euro or face imprisonment due to their decision to homeschool. Unlike other cases which have gained international attention, the Neubronners are not homeschooling for religious reasons. In fact, they have been homeschooling under the authority of two school teachers with regular monitoring. This makes them much more easily to identify with from a German standpoint. They pose an interesting question.

We are ready to endure this because it could be a strong signal for the public discussion if well-educated, well-integrated, intellectual [Is it possible that intellectual doesn't fit here? More along the lines of "rational" or "rationally thinking"?] parents (no trace of a “parallel society”) get imprisoned because of compulsory schooling. Learning Freely Network

They are right that this would be a case more likely to attract the sympathies of the average German. Something else which caught my attention that just did not seem right to me:

The appeal court denies us the usual financial legal aid for poor complainants because of “missing prospect of success”, so we will have to pay for all court costs. Ibid.

Don’t we offer court-appointed attorney’s to defend everyone we prosecute?

At any rate, if this case is successful, it could open a door for other families seeking to homeschool in Germany.

And why are the Neubronners homeschooling? Quite simply because their children came home physically ill from school and do not wish to return. The court rejected the argument, obviously. But in the paperwork was an interesting attachment with this table on school violence in Berlin, Germany. Note the general trend:

(In order: Threats, Insults, Blackmail, Bodily Injury, Dangerous Bodily Injury, Mobbing, Robbery, NeoNazi activity, Vandalism, Sexual Assault, Other., Total)

That would leave me feeling sick to my stomach, too.

Updated to add: I am printing off a copy of this brochure as I type, so will give an update after reading it. Here it is.

Governments all over the world put out tons of these kinds of brochures. I used to peruse the offerings from our very own Department of Education and found some pretty interesting things. (I mean that in a good way.) Never anything like this, from the German Ministry of Family Affairs:

“Fathers do not devote enough attention to the clitoris and vagina of their daughters. Their caresses too seldom pertain to these regions, while this is the only way the girls can develop a sense of pride in their sex,” reads the booklet regarding 1-3 year olds. The authors rationalize, “The child touches all parts of their father’s body, sometimes arousing him. The father should do the same.” Lifesite News

When I was pregnant in Germany, I became interested in the topic of infant massage. So I went to the library to find out more. The first book I came across paid particular attention to the massaging of the genitalia in order to stimulate proper sexual development. So I lost interest in infant massage very quickly. That was nine years ago, so it is not really surprising that this would have gained acceptance in the mean time.

But maybe, just maybe, something was lost in translation? I went searching for a little more information. The press release announcing their availability, free of charge, is dated 2001 and lets us no that the Federal Center for healthy sexual education would like to support parents with difficult topics, including how the parent can accompany the child through the sexual development of their children.

The pamphlets are listed on the BZgA website, with the notice that the publications have been pulled and are temporarily unavailable. This was in reaction to protest from a parent. I am hoping that the reason this took six years is because it took it that long for anyone to read it. Who could read this and not question what is being promoted:

The vagina and especially the clitoris, rarely receive any attention during tender caressing (either from the father or the mother) and make it more difficult for the young girl to develop pride in her sexuality. Spiegel

I’m sorry, but parental fondling of the genitalia does not promote healthy sexual development. To their credit, when the complaint was lodged, the brochure was pulled. But did they actually read it before they made it available?

Irene Johns of the Child Defense League says

Although the brochures are meant differently, pedophiles could use them as justification. Ibid.

No kidding. It appears that they are training good parents concerned about the development of their children in the art.

Minister of Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen (CDU) characterized certain statements as “on the border.”

A few of the formulations are misleading and have a double meaning. Ibid.

Since the brochure is unavailable and I am only looking at some pulled quotes, perhaps this is accurate. But it seems like a lame defense from a governmental entity that knows most people will never actually read the document in question. Forgive the mistrust. The German educational system has already developed a reputation for its sexual education. And therein lies the problem.

The co-author of the Hessian Sexual Education Guidelines stated several years ago, “We need the sexual stimulation of the students in order to bring about the socialist restructuring of society and the do away with the obedience to authority, including the love of a child to its parent. Gruende fuer Homeschooling

At any rate, the brochures are not presently available…in Germany. But the Swiss Child Defense League has already expressed interest in adopting the suggestions.

There has been an ongoing discussion for years, reports Spiegel. But the original focus group received the brochures positively and praised them for their content and presentation. The government is merely following suit as the morality of the people declines.

Hat tip: Judy Aron and No Apology

In the fall of 1943, the Royal Airforce devastated the industrial town of Kassel, Germany, killing 10,000 people and destroying the beautiful town square. In order “to reconcile German public life with international modernity and also confront it with its own failed Enlightenment,” [source] art professor and designer Arnold Bode instigated an invasion of a different sort. With its debut in 1955, documenta continues to celebrate the contributions of abstract art (declared degenerate by the Nazi government), attracting a diverse group of artists and hundreds of thousands of tourists to this small community for 100 days every five years.

Sounds like a wonderful opportunity for the community. Except for one thing. It is an exhibition which has nothing to do with Kassel. It is organized by an artistic elite and promoted by outside organizations with little regard for the people who live there, a problem which has haunted documenta from the beginning. It has even spawned a counter-exhibition: Poor.

A parallel “alternative” arts festival is attempting to highlight the difference between the city’s glossy Documenta [sic] image and its working-class reality. Members of an action group called Poor hold protests on the city’s streets most nights claiming to protect local culture from the invaders. “People should know that four-and-a-half out of every five years in Kassel are crap,” said Michael Schmeisser, the organiser. The Independent

But it is good for you, citizens of Kassel. While Hitler may have denied you access to this form of art, modern Germany is going to thrust it upon you. Not that the citizens are incapable of stamping a little of their own attitude onto the event. Chilean artist Lotty Rosenfeld had traveled all the way from South America to tape white crosses along the streets in a protest against violence. But her exhibit met with an untimely burial.

For an event that claims the title “World’s biggest contemporary art exhibition”, it was hardly an auspicious start: just hours before the opening of Germany’s prestigious Documenta [sic] modern art extravaganza, street cleaners tore up one of the show’s key exhibits and chucked the remnants into a municipal dust cart. Ibid.

Don’t get me wrong. I love art. Even abstract art. Even when it pushes the boundaries, so long as I am expecting it. But I don’t think I’d like it thrust upon me. It looks like the closest the exhibition came to celebrating something of value to the local community was German artist Joseph Beuy’s planting of 7,000 oak trees back in 1987. The oak is a long-standing symbol of eternality and strength in Germany. Although it, too, met with initial resistance, this exhibit has grown on the people of Kassel. As Dr. Rhea Thönges-Stringaris summarizes the exhibit (my translation):

There is probably scarcely anyone in Kassel who, whether in avenues or in parks, doesn’t come into contact with Beuy’s trees daily: a tree, a stone. We got accustomed to it. They are part of our everyday life and the the same time components of an unusual, because invisible, sculpture. No one can ever see it as a whole. In the traditional sense, a “sculpture” is not conceivable without its countours. But on paper, on the map, contours are not tangible. 7000Eichen.de (German)

That seems to me to better exemplify the purpose of art as a combination of human skill and purpose. More so than attempting to plant a rice paddy on the side of a hill in Kassel, anyway.

Photo credits: Kassel Mission, 7000 Oaks

art, documenta

For those of you following the situation in Germany, Educating Germany has a few posts up regarding the situation in Baden Wuerttemburg where officials are seeking to change the attendance law. Parents who neglect to send their children to school will have to figure on the involvement of the Youth Welfare Office.

And a ray of hope perhaps? I received an update to the Dudek case.

Dudek, homeschooling, homeschooling in Germany

There are a number of research studies out at the moment highlighting the psychological benefits of religion in the lives of the religious. While often depicted as “the root of all evil,” religion actually produces a greater sense of well-being and better general health. Australian researchers have just published a series of studies on the subject in a special issue of The Medical Journal of Australia. In an interview, epidemiologist Richard Eckersley effectively summarizes the importance of religion not only to the individual, but to society:

A lot of people have a pretty hostile view of religion, essentially seeing it as a source of misguided notions about life and a source of problems and conflict. But religion as perhaps the most common cultural expression of the spiritual – not the only expression – does provide many of the things that are conducive to well-being – and these include social support or social networks, a coherent belief system, a sense of purpose, a clear moral code. Religions tend to package these things in a way that makes them accessible to people and that historically I think has been its social role and value.

Religion is an expression of who we are and what we hold dear. Our founders understood this as they sought to institute a system which prevented the abuses a state religion had caused in England. Religion is not so easy to uproot, and when confronted directly can cause conflict. Take the example of Germany. The stated reason that homeschooling cannot be tolerated is that it produces parallel societies which are an enemy of a pluralistic society. So the state goes on the offense, aggressively pursuing homeschoolers and strengthening legislation against it, thereby forcing the development of the parallel societies it so fears. This is a direct result of the enlightenment, which I’ll get into later, Dr. Michael Donnelly of HSLDA had some very insightful comments in his speech to at the colloquium held in Germany. Actually, I encourage to read the whole thing. While he is speaking directly to this issue in Germany, the same problem is at the heart of the socialization question and is something we as homeschoolers need a better answer for.

While parallel societies may indeed be the enemy of a democratic state, dogmatic and coerced uniformity is the enemy of a pluralistic society

…In Germany what we see in Education is not pluralism but rather support of a state controlled system of education–the purpose which is not to promote pluralism but rather to standardize and integrate children into society. Forcing all children to attend state sponsored schools is a sure way to stamp out pluralism. In the State schools a uniform curriculum provided by uniformly organized teachers in uniformly organized and established schools creates a uniform social structure within society. This is a tautological argument. It speaks for itself.

Indeed, one can argue that by forcibly curtailing educational choice in Germany, the German government is sowing the seeds of parallel societies and future conflict between these societies within Germany.

Ideas can be changed in society through conversation, debate and the free exchange of ideas. They cannot, however, be forced externally. That is, of course, true whether you seek to eradicate religion or uphold it. Our beliefs and expression thereof are deeply personal and and inextricable from who we are. External force serves only to divide and isolate groups within society, forcing them into “parallel” societies and increasing the tensions between groups.

Update 1: (July 4, 2007) The Dudeks appeared before the family court in Hessen. After speaking with the children, the judge determined that there was no issue with the well-being of the children. They were healthy and happy. There was no cause to order a psychological evaluation. He also refused to admonish the parents to place the children in school because that was not in his jurisdiction. He also reprimanded the Youth Welfare Office for not doing a proper investigation.

May 19, 2007 At this time, I do not have very much background information on the Dudek family, but they are facing charges related to homeschooling their children. Unlike most of the cases so far, however, the Dudeks are homeschooling in Hessen where homeschooling is a criminal rather than administrative offense.

The following is an article from HNA online. It is not my translation:

Dudek family to go before court once again.

By Harald Sagawe

Prosecutor Herwig Muller has appealed against the verdict in the case of Rosemarie and Jürgen Dudek. The couple from the German town of Archfeld in Herleshausen was sentenced to fines at the beginning of May. In the meantime the prosecutor in Kassel has applied for jail sentences of three months each, without probation, for the parents of six children.

Rosemarie and Jürgen Dudek were sentenced because they did not send their children to school, for religious reasons. The parents, Christians who closely follow the bible, teach their children themselves. Two years ago the court had also dealt with the Dudeks. That case, dealing with the payment of a fine, had been dropped. An application for the approval of a state-recognised private school – which, according to experts, has no chance of success at any rate – has still not been decided by the school authorities.
“It’s a terrible thing, to lock up a family that hasn’t done anyone any harm,” says the accused, Jürgen Dudek.
The prosecutor, Herwig Müller, is currently on vacation. Chief prosecutor Hans-Manfred Jung confirmed the veto, but could not say anything about the reasons.
Jürgen Dudek is horrified at the idea that the prosecution wants to see him and his wife behind bars. “It’s a terrible thing, to lock up a family that hasn’t done anyone any harm,” he says, “especially now, with the legal situation looking the way it is.” He regards the matter as absurd.

The judge’s job is to pronounce a verdict and not mix himself up in administrative matters, says Arno Meissner, director of the education department. Meanwhile he makes it clear that his office will by no means leave the family in peace, not even temporarily. “We will enforce compulsory school attendance against the family as promptly as possible. First his office intends to talk with the family, then to set a time limit and if this is not met, it will once again open a criminal case against them. Not even the announcement of a move by the family will settle the matter, declared Meissner.

Meissner dismissed the criticism made by Peter Höbbel, the judge of the juvenile court, against his department. We won’t let ourselves be admonished by a judge in that way, he said. “His duty is to make a judgement when the prosecutor brings a charge and to stay out of administrative matters.” Höbbel had rebuked the education department because it has been sitting on the Dudeks’ application for the approval of a private school for two and a half years, with no decision having been made about it.

I have quite a few messages in my inbox at the moment. I don’t know if any of it is relevant, but I’ll post updates, if applicable.

Clarification: For some reason, I edited this out when the original got too long, but there are not actually any American military bases in Niedersachsen, and they certainly have no authority over anyone in any other state, American or not. I am more curious about their stance in general. Would it stand in court? Can a Host Nation direct a family on base to send a child to school? Would the Host Nation bother, even if it were clearer? States have historically displayed an interest in the education of foreign nationals. Many homeschoolers are foreigners. The example of military bases was raised in the paperwork which the state rejected. (Thanks, Valerie!)

I think the German state is way off on this one, but it is their country. And our citizens. The following is from a rejection letter to a homeschooling family in Niedersachsen. This family is not American, nor military, but the following paragraph effects such families directly:

For comparison consider the situation of children in foreign armed forces in Niedersachsen. According to Number 3.1.1 of the decree of the Ministry of Education and Culture, “Supplementary regulations to compulsory school attendance and to the legal relationship to school” of August 29, 1995, the compulsory school attendance exists independent of citizenship. Children of members of stationed military forces are therewith fundamentally under the compulsory attendance law even in Germany. They fulfill their compulsory schooling, however, through attendance at schools run by the stationing armed forces. If this were not to occur, they would be required to attend school at a German school, and that would be regardless of the length of stationing of the parent, or parents.

HSLDA has stated previously:

In summary, military families do have the right to home school. If a military home school family resides in the United States, they must abide by the state’s compulsory attendance law. If the military family lives on foreign soil, however, they are not under the jurisdiction of the foreign country’s compulsory attendance law. Nor are they under any regulatory authority of the DoD.

This is based on a case in which American military officers tried to enforce compulsory education laws on military homeschoolers. The eventual decision stated:

Public education within the United States is a matter which our constitutional system leaves to the discretion of each State. Each State, therefore, makes its own laws pertaining to education. These laws are binding on all persons within the State’s border, including the dependents of the Department of Defense (DOD) (including the Military Services). The Secretary of Defense does not have the legal authority to issue the kind of regulatory exemption from State eduction law. The DoD has a specific statutory authority to operate a school for DoD dependents who are assigned overseas.

Our statute, unlike the many State statutes which do not apply overseas, does not compel the attendance of any DoD dependent in DoD Dependent Schools. Therefore, a dependent may choose not to enroll in our program (DoDDS) and to elect, instead, an alternative enrollment; for example, a foreign language school, a private school, or in a home schooling program. Our statute imposes no duty on the DoD to finance the cost of any alternate educational benefits. For these reasons, there is no reason for the Secretary to issue a regulation…regulating home schooling for overseas DoD dependents.

So the military cannot enforce compulsory education, but can the host nation? That is unclear under SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement). Largely, it is based on some ambiguities. US military children are under the authority of the host nation’s laws, but so long as their misbehavior remains “in house” the correction remains largely “in house.” The host nation has no compelling interest in regulating the relationships between people living on the base.

And what interest does the host nation have in the education of foreign citizens? Niedersachsen seems to think it does have an interest, both in the education of civilians (to whom this letter was addressed) and of military families stationed in Germany.

For more information on the complicated issue of homeschooling as a military family in Germany, I found this article at NHEN to include a lot of helpful information. If you know any more information, please share!

Related Tags: homeschooling, Germany, military homeschooling

Jennifer has an interesting entry from yesterday about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German pastor, writer, dissident and martyr who was ultimately executed for his crimes against the Nazi regime. She shares an interesting excerpt from a documentary about his life:

The church has three possible ways it can act against the state. First, it can ask the state if its actions are legitimate. Second, it can aid the victims of the state action. The church has the unconditional obligation to the victims of any ordering society even if they do not belong to the Christian society. The third possibility is not just [to] bandage the victims under the wheel, but to jam a spoke in the wheel itself.

The relationship between the individual and the state and particularly between the Christian and the state has always interested me. For the most part, it seems that Christianity teaches that the individual is to go out of his way to be obedient and subservient to those in authority. But even in the well-known passages pointing to Christian humility found in the Sermon on the Mount, there are some hints at resistance to Roman rule.

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. –Matthew 5:39

This verse used to bother me. It seemed to me that Jesus was setting up all kinds of boundary problems in His followers. Accept persecution in His name, yes, but just outright abuse for no good reason? It also seems to violate the resistance Jesus himself offered to religious authorities.

Then I heard a discussion on Jewish customs of the time and found it to be quite interesting. In the culture of the time, it was acceptable to back hand someone on the cheek with your right hand…done from someone of higher rank to someone of lesser rank. Cultural taboos made it impossible to strike with the left hand and only equals were struck with the palm of the hand.

By turning your cheek, you were subtly telling the aggressor that you were an equal.

There are interesting examples from European history which illustrate just how powerful simple acts of respectful insubordination can be.

Perhaps this was not as dramatic as what Bonhoeffer planned in response to Nazi Germany. But there were other options to resist Hitler. Imagine if all who called themselves Christians responded as the tiny Protestant village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon who hid 5,000 Jews from authorities? What if all of Europe had responded as Denmark who managed to move almost its entire Jewish population out of the country with only two days warning that Germany was taking them to a concentration camp? Less than 500 of Denmark’s 7,500 Jews were captured, and the Danish government continued to work with Germany on their behalf. Care packages were sent and the Danish Red Cross arrived to inspect their condition at Theresienstadt. Eichmann did not dare move them to a death camp. Very few died. If I remember correctly, Denmark was also the only country which arranged to pick up the Jews as soon as Germany was defeated.

Denmark was also different and special in another way. Almost everywhere else in Europe, returning Jews found their homes had been broken into, and everything of value stolen. When the Danish Jews returned, they discovered that their homes, pets, gardens and personal belongings were cared for by their neighbors.

Had the Christian Church responded universally with such resistance, Nazi Germany never would have existed and violent measures would not have been necessary.

Photo: Danish fishermen saving Jews

Related Tags: Germany, Bonhoeffer, Christianity, passive resistance

This is a continuation of the post on Melissa Busekros because it was getting long enough that some were having trouble loading it. I will continue updates here, but there is a good deal of history on the subject over there.

World Magazine has a nice article about Melissa. The family’s “Kindergeld” was finally reinstated. (In Germany, you receive money from the state for each child).

Worth Reading: Scatty’s update. The link to the German forum she provides where you can see pictures of the documents sitting in my inbox. Just scroll down…it is all in German, but there it is. The case isn’t over yet, but at least we know that Melissa is home, the Youth Welfare office is not going to take her and custody now legally rests with the family. The highlight (my translation):

…the observations and perceptions of Amina in every day life furnished no evidence of acute endangerment which would require the renewed intervention of the Youth Welfare Office….

[The massive intervention] was made solely on observations made over a short period of time.

And a nice article, in German.

The case will be progressing, and we’ll see how it goes. Paperwork is being submitted to the European Court of Human Rights, as well.

Update 33: News! Bildungsinitiative-Zukunft is reporting that a higher court has lifted the case against the Busekros family in light of new evidence. (Follow the link that says News in the sidebar. It is in German, and this site has popups which my popup blocker doesn’t seem to filter.)I have a backlog of info in my email box, mostly paperwork in preparation of this hearing, I think. When I have more information and the time to translate, I’ll post.

Homeschooling Colloquium: April 27-29, Netzwerk Bildungsfreiheit held it 2nd Annual Colloquium on Home Education in Burg Rothenfels. Melissa was an honored guest, and several other experts gave presentations to the 250 attendees. Pictures and a German description are available here.

One thing which has struck me immensely as I have had continued contact with Netzwerk Bildungsfreiheit is summarized in their report (my translation):

Impressive was how harmonious the varying organizations, initiatives and individuals were in their unified goal: educational freedom instead of compulsory attendance.

It seems we could learn a bit from this approach here in America. Just as pressure is heating up for greater governmental regulations, it seems the homeschool population is splintering.

More info on Melissa’s return home: The Youth Welfare Office denied a request for Melissa to visit her parents during her birthday. At 3AM, she climbed out of the window of her foster family and made her way home of her own volition. She left a note, thanking the family for her care.

Being 16, she should have greater rights at determining where she wishes to live, however she has not been discharged from the foster care system and this was not planned. She was able to celebrate her birthday at home. In the picture, you can see her with her mother looking at the letters from around the world. Several people stopped by to offer their congratulations and news agencies, including the Bayerischen Rundfunk (Bavarian Radio), FocusTV and the Nurenburg Nachrichten, were also present.

Authorities did not intervene, however some action is expected. Her lawyer has reportedly advised her to refuse to go with them. Upon questioning from the Nuremburger Nachrichten, the Youth Welfare Office responded, “We are informed as to the whereabouts of Amina.” The office stated that it would not act in haste, but would weigh further steps carefully in the interests of the child. There is a nice article in the Nurenburg Nachrichten about the case. The following are some excerpted quotes:

About her flight: “I packed my things in the night, threw them out the window and jumped after them. I would like to stay home and never return there for any reason. I missed my family very much.”

The worst part, she shares, was her stay in the psychiatric ward of the local clinic: “No one told me where I was or why I was there. It was like in a prison. I couldn’t leave, only eat, sleep and watch a little television.”

Plans for the future: “I would like to graduate, if possible, also [complete] the Abitur.” (Highest level of German certification. This would allow her to go to university, if she chooses.) She does not rule out returning to a state school. “That depends on the circumstances.”

Update 32 (4/23/07) Last night, Melissa left her foster home and returned home. Since she is now 16, the Youth Welfare Office reportedly has no authority over her. There may yet be some issue with other authorities, but the report seems hopeful that all will be resolved favorably for the family.

More here. It is in German and I will try to put up a summary later.

Update 31 (4/22/07) Tomorrow is Melissa’s Birthday. A “Birthday action” is being planned which anyone interested may participate in. If you would like to wish her a happy birthday, light 16 candles and send the picture to falumafischer@aol.com.

They are hoping to have at least 123 families participate so that 1968 candles may burn, one representing each day hour (as of 6PM local time on the 23rd) she has been away from her family.

They will be posted on this website (click on “HAPPY BIRTHDAY MELISSA”). The first pictures are already up and the rest will be put in an online album.

Also, AMN blog is reporting that the new psychologist that interviewed Melissa finds her emotionally healthy. I received the same report and will translate the German in its entirety later (probably tonight). Unfortunately, there is no source with this excerpt, and I cannot verify its authenticity. I hope it proves to be true for it will make the family’s case a bit stronger as they prepare to go back to court.

Update 30 (4/15/07) This is the document I referred to earlier. (It is in German and a pdf document). I have only read the first four pages at the moment, but it is largely a summary of what has happened so far in the case in preparation for the next hearing. It came with some minor corrections, such as the career of the mother, etc., but no large discrep
ancies.

(edited, if you were here earlier. Will post later…parents do have heavily regulated visitation)

Update 29 (4/15/07) In a letter dated 03.04.07, the Bavarian Minister of State responds to a letter from Joerg Grosseluemern of Netwerk Bildungsfreiheit on Melissa’s cases. The following is a translation:

Dear Mr. Grosseluemern,

Thank you for the E-mail of 25 February 2007 regarding the case of the Busekros family. Minister of State Dr. Beckstein regrets the development of the proceedings of the 15 year old Melissa very much.

From the view of the Minister of State, the well-being of the girl must stand clearly in the foreground in the judgment of the individual circumstances of the case. The well-being of Melissa also means that she receives and education equivalent to her ability. Out of the legally embodied school attendance law arises for the children and youth a right to an appropriate education.

The unreasonable behavior of the parents has given rise to the need for the family court, according to the laws, to give legal custody over to the youth welfare office of Erlangen. It is not in the power of the Minister of State of the Interior to put into doubt the legality of a decision of an independent court.

In so far as police officials participated in the transfer arrangement to bring Melissa temporarily into a care facility, they participated at the aid of the responsible youth welfare office. The behavior of the participating police officers is, according to what is known at the time, nothing to complain of.

With friendly greetings,

Dr. Sommer
Director of Government

Again, the state seems to contradict the Youth Welfare Office’s assertion that this has nothing to do with homeschooling (update 4). Homeschooling is continually portrayed as being in violation of the rights of the child to an appropriate education.

I have another update sent me from Herrn Busekros, but I have not had time to read it, let alone translate it. I hope to have it up before I leave tomorrow, otherwise it won’t be until next week. Melissa’s birthday is coming up this month and she will turn 16. I have to double check, but I believe some of the legal issues change at that time.

Related Tags: Melissa Busekros, Busekros, homeschooling, Germany, Jugendamt, Unterricht zu Hause, Bildung, Bildungsfreiheit

I have a great deal of respect for Valerie over at Home Education Magazine given that she is one of very few people in the discussion of homeschooling in Germany that has access to information beyond what is being reported by HSLDA, WND, LifeSite, etc. as well as personal experience with the culture.

In her recent post, she tackles a question Izzy posed, “Has there been much public outrage in Germany over these abuses.”

And Valerie’s answer is essentially that there are significant cultural differences between the US and Germany (which is obviously true). But reducing the homeschooling situation to cultural standards is hardly a fair representation of what is occurring and why. The core issue is whether or not a parent has the right to direct the education of his or her own child and is not as shallow as cultural differences in dress and diet. You don’t see outrage in the Middle East over honor killing, nor outrage in South East Asia over child prostitution, nor outrage in much of the world over child labor. There was no outrage early in our history over the treatment of homosexuals (death penalty in many cases…Thomas Jefferson was kind enough to argue for castration). There certainly wasn’t an outcry over the treatment of Native Americans and not a lot over the issue of slavery, at least in the South.

All of these activities may be (or have been) accepted by the culture they existed in. But I would not say they are as petty as minor cultural differences that shouldn’t raise concern beyond those they immediately effect. (And for some reason, Germany does seem to have a particular hang-up with the local affairs of America. Peruse the headlines of Spiegel sometime…or read David’s Medienkritik (it is in English). Germany’s fascination with our affairs is somewhat obsessive. )

That does not mean that we should become militarily engaged with Germany to “correct” their education system. Nor does it mean that we should be sending off thousands of letters calling officials Nazis. For change to work, it must come from within, but that does not bar concerned citizens of any country to voice that concern through whatever means are available.

And, interestingly, even the United Nations sees this as a greater issue than merely a cultural difference. In his report (pdf), Victor Munoz recommends that, in order to uphold the rights of the parents, homeschooling should be allowed under the supervision of the state. (93g)

I think that Professor Volker Ladenthin explains the issue well. He is an education professor at the University of Bonn, Germany and recently granted an interview with “Die Welt.” Here is the interview in its entirety (I am not the translator, but made a couple minor corrections).

“ The Criminalization of Parents is a Scandal.” (posted in Welt-Online, March 23^rd, 2007. „Die Welt“ is a major German daily newspaper.)

Bonn- Volker Ladenthin is the first and only German Professor of Education, who officially supports Homeschooling. So far it is illegal in Germany. But critics, such as the UN-Consultant Vernor Munoz Villalobos, no longer want to accept that home- schooling is forbidden in Germany. The obligation to go to school should be converted to an obligation to get an education, such as in other countries says Ladenthin, Professor for historic and systematic educational sciences at the Bonn University. In his book “Homeschooling” (Publisher: Ergon Verlag, Wuerzburg, 2006) Ladenthin describes why parents are looking for a way out of school. Brigitta vom Lehn spoke with Ladenthin.

Q: Mr. Ladenthin, so far no Professor of Education in Germany has seriously addressed the issue of Homeschooling. Why?

Ladenthin: It usually takes a few years until new reality phenomena are being picked up by the scientific community. A few years ago we had the discussion about self-learning in an independent school and if you consequently think it through to the end, then independent schooling is the schooling which the parents do themselves. Then it appeared that Home-schooling also presents itself as a social movement which we have to take into consideration in the future. Before the positions harden, I consider it to be useful to consider the arguments.

Q: And what are the arguments? It is certainly much easier to just send the children to school.

Ladenthin: I find that it is much easier to have the children at home. Then you are with them in your own world, you know what interests them. To send children away is always work: You have to prepare them for school, and when they come back, you still need to work with them.

Q: Indeed many parents find that work really starts after school. Homework, practice, studying. Then parents tell themselves: I might as well do all of that myself.

Ladenthin: Right. Politicians often say: We do not want the creation of Minorities or Subgroups of Society. But the afternoons are already in private hands. That’s when most mothers are active, or they send the children to private tutoring institutes. De Facto we already do home-school a third to a half of the school time.

Q: What is the parent group who wants to home-school?

Ladenthin: These are parents, who see that their children have difficulties in school. There are three groups: Firstly children with physical handicaps, who have to be transported too far. There is a case in the Eifel Region, where the school administration insists that a blind child be transported 120 Kilometers to a school for the blind. That is totally insane! Secondly there are children who do not fit into school due to the psychological problems, such as the typical victims of bullies, the sensitive children who struggle in the very big classes. The third group of parents is very education focused and have experienced that many of their children’s classes were canceled and their children ended up drawing Mandalas in school for half a year. These parents say: We do not want that. We want our children to have the best possible education. That’s why we will take care of it ourselves.

Q: Are these mostly parents close to the educated class who support homeschooling?

Ladenthin: Yes. For your background: The mandatory school attendance was originally introduced because parents who were distant from the educated classes kept their children at home to help on the farm. Then the state said: The parents are hurting their children because they are only considering short term benefits. So they introduced mandatory school attendance, they took the children away from the parents , so they could learn something. Now we have a different clientel: we have highly educated parents, 50% have gone through the Gymnasium (college prep school).
They say: Children learn either not enough or the wrong thing in school. The state no longer needs to protect the children from the parents, but he must support the parents. But this has not been well understood so far.

Q: Why does Germany have such a hard time with home-schooling? While in many other countries it is quite common.

Ladenthin: In Germany state tradition is very strong. Germany was one of the first countries in Europe which introduced the public (state) school. The tradition continues.

Q: How high do you consider the demand for private schooling?

Ladenthin: I think it is very high and it will increase. Because the state schools become more and more administrative units. They administer knowledge. But they do not take the children seriously as persons. This is no longer possible with norms and standardizations. Parents who are ambitious for a good education will look for ways out of the school system. The push towards private schools is already there. My prognosis: We will experience a highly differentiated educational system.

Q: Up to what age do you see it possible that children can be home-schooled?

Ladenthin: Until grade seven. After that you can only school your children in subjects in which parents are specialiced.

Q: Critics fear that with home-schooling, religious groups isolate themselves and influence their children.

Ladenthin: I see a certain danger that sects/cults recruit their following this way. That happens de facto today, without anybody being bothered by it, for example with the Jehova’s witnesses. They send their children to school, but they isolate them in their entire social life. And nobody cares. This is also the point where I have a conflict with home-schoolers. I say to those parents: Not your parental powers is the right you have, it is your teaching task. They must not form their children after their own wishes, but form the children after the children’s wishes.

Q: Should parents allow themselves to be tested whether they are up to the task?

Ladenthin: Yes the whole thing would have to be done professionally. We are now planning the first research study on home-schooling in Germany.

Q: Do you think it is appropriate on how the youth offices (child protection agency) react? Often they are very rigid, they pick up children, send them to psychiatric clinics, put the parents in jail.

Ladenthin: No, that is not appropriate. You cannot enforce education with violent force. Education and violent force are mutually exclusive. A gentle approach is absolutely necessary, especially since you are dealing with parents who want the best education for their children. The fact that these parents are being criminalized is a scandal.