Absent any evidence of abuse, true neglect (homeschooling doesn't count, regardless of Germany's laws on the matter), or other violation of a worthwhile law, this can only be considered further evidence of consolidation of power in the hands of the State and governmental overreach.
The best part is that even in the US, after a family of homeschoolers sought and obtained asylum from Germany here, our own Department of Justice appealed the court decision and asked to have them deported, making excuses about how the goal of the mandatory public schooling is so laudable (tolerance etc).
Other fun facts to point out:
* the German government is officially going to "look for possibilities to bring the religious convictions of the family into line with the unalterable school attendance requirement"
* the laws that eliminated the homeschooling option literally date back to the Hitler regime.
the laws that eliminated the homeschooling option literally date back to the Hitler regime.
It goes further back. The Prussian regime was basically the founder of our current institutionalized public education system in the west as we know it today.
Actually it did as the roads where of significant military value. (Not that it is relevant to this discussion or most of today's users, just an interesting side note.)
I can understand the State Department's point of view. All Germans are entitled to live and work throughout the EEA (EU plus Switzerland, Norway and Lichtenstein). Most of Western Europe is okay with homeschooling. I know it can be done in Austria.
What nice theory? Passports are state property. I can't read the article, in China. But you can travel without a passport within the Schengen area. If they can get unsupervised access to their kids they should fuck off with them elsewhere in the EU. There will be neither public nor legal support for homeschooling in Germany and I doubt they'd win if they got to the European Court of Human Rights either. If they stay in Germany they lose their kids or their religion. Flight is their best option.
The nice theory is that "All Germans are entitled to live and work throughout the EEA (EU plus Switzerland, Norway and Lichtenstein)", which fails hard when your passports are seized.
Sounds like we're violently agreeing; still, I wonder why they haven't taken this step prior to now.
I find it it interesting that you seem to think it is adequate for you to judge these things 'regardless of German law'. This is a democratically legitimized law that is backed by the vast majority of citizens and has been found to be conforming to the constitution by the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the remarkably potically independent Supreme Court. Just as the US doesn't welcome foreign commentary on laws like 'stand your ground' or 'National Security Letters', other democratic souvereign countries have the right to give themselves laws that conform with the opinions or the majority of its citizens.
Here is the rationale:
Germany provides high quality free public education to everyone. That education is obligatory for children under 15 and it is neglect of parents to deny their children their right to profit from this education. I think this is a good thing and so does the vast majority of German citizens. You don't have to agree.
And would not everything you've said be true of, say, this bit of legislation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 with the Reichsrat (which I'll admit I first heard of today) substituting for the Bundesverfassungsgericht?
Really, now, I think you don't understand our concepts of e.g. natural law (e.g. the right to effective self-defense), and that some things, no matter how consecrated by much beloved process, can nonetheless be utterly illegitimate.
Part of the US system is protection from tyranny of the majority. Prop 8 in California banned gay marriage. It was passed by a 52% majority of the people, but struck down in court.
That said, I think that everyone should attend a school. Even (especially) if you don't agree with the curriculum, it's best to let children learn it. It's better to disagree with something you know rather than something you don't know.
Homeschooling is much more work than sending a child to public school. For example, my youngest sister had a bad infection for several months during winter and spring that affected her mood causing her to have trouble in school.
She attended a traditional public school for several months, but the atmosphere was not working.
She transfered to a different public school in our district that only meets 4 times a week, and focuses on the core classes, but that still didn't work.
In the end, my family pulled her out of school for the remaining three months and taught her at home. She able to get ahead, and enrolled in a program for children that had various issues with a traditional school. The program starts in 7th grade (~13yo) with 8th grade curriculum, then continues in 8th grade, reviewing the 8th grade curriculum for another year, so that they are prepared for high school. Despite failing most classes in 6th grade, she received straight A's in this program with 8th grade work, and is now a year ahead in math.
Having home-school as an option gives an incentive for schools to improve, and allows people the flexibility to make the best choices for schooling their children. Some may abuse that, but I think it should be offered.
For reference, for high-school aged students, these are the options in my area:
- Traditional high school (5 days/wk, with Math/Science/Language/History, and electives - Art, Music, etc). You can take advanced classes, such as AP for college credit.
- Public Charter School (4 days/wk - no Wednesday - Math/Science/Language/History only. Must submit proof of doing art/PE/etc independently)
- Non-traditional high school (1 day required, teachers available during the rest of the week - requires much work at home)
- Home-School link (1 day w/ teachers to coordinate lessons, work done at home.)
- "Running-Start" - attend community college classes for free, earn both high school and college credit.
- Private school (religious - don't know any details)
- Full Home-school (still required to pass some state exams, must get GED to count as high school).
Additionally, sports and music programs were offered only at the traditional high schools, but students living in the district attending any of these options, including private school, could participate.
I think all of these are valid options, and I knew people in all of these programs that also participated in other activities, like sports. I think that traditional high school, or the more focused charter school are the best options for most, but not for everyone.
Most of the neglectful parents, I would think, sent their children to public school. They certainly would not take the time to teach their children on their own, or pay to send them to private school. They wouldn't apply to enter them in to another one of the programs. The worst case scenario is an incompetent parent that still insists on home-schooling. I can live with parents that have objections to the curriculum pulling their students out.
Of course, I know the German school system is much different than the US system. In the US, however, I think that home school needs to be an option.
Thank you for the informative reply! I just wanted to add a few points I missed in my earlier post:
* there are schools run by private initiatives (usually non-for profits) that provide different atmosphere and focus For instance, Montessori schools focus more on personal creativity. There is regulation in place though to guarantee that every school teaches a the basic curriculum independent of the individual world view of the people who run it.
* Many schools are morning schools from 8am-1pm. This means that parents do have opportunity to set priorities and provide personal education in addition to the school offering. However, they cannot take away from the standard curriculum.
So where do you draw the line for "worthwhile" laws? Almost any modern state has systems in place to protect children, its most vulnerable citizens. Even from their parents, if need be. Which, in Germany, includes providing sufficient education and socialization to each child.
I understand that a lot of people (especially those with some religious beliefs that contradict curricula) disagree with that and consider this a slippery slope, but then again, almost every intrusion into the rights of a parent could be judged that way. So just let 'em do whatever they will, parental instinct will prevail?
You're essentially saying we have no way of judging whether the law is good or not.
But there are at least two large bodies of scientific literature that shed light on this question. The first is the psychological evidence that sending men with guns to drag children away from a family where they are safe and loved is hugely damaging. So much so that it is highly unlikely to be worth it, even if you think homeschooling is bad.
The second is the evidence that home-schooled students do not underperform other children by any measurable standards, and are frequently found to outperform. This includes both academics and general success/happiness later in life. They are also no more likely to engage in anti-social behaviors. Which begs the question: what is the state's compelling interest, if there is zero evidence for damage to the children or to society at large?
Obviously it's not really about protecting children. Because if it was, you would write a law laying out standards for what constitutes sufficiently good education, and then let anyone try to meet those standards. Instead the law imposes a monopoly.
Well, not quite. You have to send your kids to an accredited school. That doesn't mean that they have to be state-owned. There are plenty of private boarding schools and especially Waldorf education is hugely popular. Some evangelical sects tried establishing their own schools.
The states have a much easier task checking whether those schools are doing their job well, then checking on every mom and pop. Never mind the socialization requirement, which probably would mean involving the CPAs as well etc. It's not just about ideology, but about feasability as well. The homeschooling crowd is a very, very small minority in Germany.
And about the studies, well, let's assume they're actually okay and not on the level of the (multitude) of "homeopathy works" studies. That still would make them US studies, right? So whether that's applicable to Germany is an open question, the school system works quite differently here (and I'm not aware of any metal detectors). I'm reminded a bit about the gun control debate...
This might be the result of me going through said school system, but if you show me two donkeys, one being the big bad statist schools and the other homeschooled kids, I know where I'd pin the tail of "likely indoctrination".
When Germany gave jurisdiction power to US MPs and special laws around US military bases (in the public streets outside the bases too), I didn't hear the same outcry.
They have a culture they want to preserve, they know that the US is exporting its culture very bullishly (in Hollywood movies and TV shows for the most part) and they are, like many western european countries, afraid of the negative side effects of the US culture (mostly around guns, violence and extreme religion, but also individualism in general).
In the sick mind of the German socialist, abuse is homeschooling, where children can't be indoctrinated by the state. Good to know that Hitler started that nice tradition.
But it says something that back then they at minimum felt they had to pay lip service to socialism and workers, despite e.g. their oppression of actual members of a socialist party.
And for quite some time into WWII they tried to deliver both guns and butter, one of the many reasons they failed was a delay in gearing up for total war.
