US Grants Home Schooling German Family Political Asylum 1324
A US judge has granted political asylum to a family who said they fled Germany to avoid persecution for home schooling their children. Uwe Romeike and his wife, Hannelore, moved to Tennessee after German authorities fined them for keeping their children out of school and sent police to escort them to classes. Mike Connelly, attorney for the Home School Legal Defence Association, argued the case. He says, "Home schoolers in Germany are a particular social group, which is one of the protected grounds under the asylum law. This judge looked at the evidence, he heard their testimony, and he felt that the way Germany is treating home schoolers is wrong. The rights being violated here are basic human rights."
Really? (Score:0, Insightful)
Brilliant! (Score:2, Insightful)
No story here (Score:3, Insightful)
FTFA:
In 2006 the Romeikes pulled their children out of a state school in Bissingen, Germany, in protest of what they deemed an anti-Christian curriculum.
They said textbooks presented ideas and language that conflicted with their Christian beliefs, including slang terms for sex acts and images of vampires and witches, while the school offered what they described as ethics lessons from Islam, Buddhism and other religions.
Well, obviously other religions can't offer any ethical guidance, and exposing the kids to them will clearly cause them to hate Christianity. Better not even expose them to other thoughts! And the best place to go for that? Here in the US.
So I presume we will immediately grant asylum... (Score:5, Insightful)
So what happens now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, so this particular family is helped. Great! Wonderful! What about the other families in Germany? Does this get bumped up to the UN?
Re:You can homeschool all you want (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, aren't we Mr. Tolerance and Understanding Incarnate! Not an ounce of prejudice here, eh? Only among those nasty stupid old home-schooling types.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
The only problem I have with homeschooling is that the vast majority of homeschooling is done by ultra fanatic religious fringe groups who claim their kids would get all those "wrong" ideas (like, say, a humanistic education and values) when they were sent to a public school.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
The nerd angle is this: an increasing number of us nerds (where 'nerd' == cerebral) are dissatisfied with the dull slow lowest-common-denominator pop-psychology politically-correct schlock ladled out at public schools. Meanwhile private schools are not a whole lot better, and cost too much anyway (typically $650/month/child with discounts for multiple children). So we are homeschooling.
TFA represents a major political victory for homeschooling, at a time when that right is under attack (re: California). I, as a homeschooler, feel like celebrating because this judge's decision will be invoked hither and thither in my defense. It may have had a whack-job religious basis, but the decision stands in defense of my ability to give my sons a non-religious hyper-rational high-intensity education.
Re:Brilliant! (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion, not schooling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I do it (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really think parents can't brainwash their kids if they go to public school?
-molo
Religious Nutjobs (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with people home-schooling to improve the quality of education. I myself was home-schooled for several years.
I do, however, have a major issue with people pulling their children out of public school so they can be home-schooled according to religious criteria. I recognize this is a slippery slope, but based on what I've read so far I support the German government.
Religious freedom allows you to worship, but it does not in my mind give one free license to program children with it. Children are not property. Religious conflict with a secular school is not a valid reason for home-schooling.
Further, home schooled children should be subject to, at the very least, the same aptitude tests and subject material criteria as public school children. (Yes, I know most public school criteria and tests are a joke, but it's at least a starting point.)
Re:Christian Activist Judges Make Me Sick (Score:2, Insightful)
Germans make for good US citizens! They're white. A funny feeling tells me that the judge would not have sympathized with non-Caucasians and/or non-Europeans with the same problem.
Re:Brilliant! (Score:3, Insightful)
Moving to Switzerland is quite an undertaking, did you know? You can't even own land unless you're a citizen, which you won't be if you immigrate -- assuming you are allowed in at all.
Re:Christian Activist Judges Make Me Sick (Score:5, Insightful)
> Homeschooling is in no way a human right.
I totally disagree. It's the basic right to raise your children with your own views and values. Today that protects the "Christian Activists", but it also protects any family from being forced to have their children educated by the government.
If you think a government being able to force you to send your children to someplace to teach them what the government wants them to learn isn't a violation of a basic human right, then I don't know what kind of rights you think humans should have.
Re:I do it (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to applaud you for presenting a well written, middle-of-the-road argument in favor of homeschooling. It's one of those things where I fear what I hear, because the only people making noise are whack jobs.
How do you address the social aspects of school? A valuable part of being in school was learning how to interact with new people, larger groups, and authority respectfully and responsibly. Its unfortunate, but part of being a productive adult is working with difficult strangers or at least working around them.
Where was the line for you between, "I'll do this myself" and "Extend/correct/expound/refine what they learned at school"? Of the teachers I know, the best students weren't always the smartest but they were the ones whose parents took an active interest in what they were learning and who added on to that at home. Even the ultra-religious, "Harry Potter is a sin", parents got some respect for actually being aware of what their kids were being exposed to.
Your thoughts? I know you don't speak for the entire homeschool community, but might as well draw some of your good ideas off while we've got someone who's done it.
Homeschooling =/= fundamentalist schooling (Score:5, Insightful)
For most families, homeschooling provides an option to help with constant travel (including military families), family changes, or just plain old bad local schools. I have a few friends who were home-schooled through HS, and they are some of the smartest and quickest people I know. In public school, classes move as fast as the slowest student (or just pass him/her by), at home, if you get it, you move on quickly and have plenty of time to be creative/play sports/do whatever.
This stigma against homeschooling has GOT to go already. Not all homeschoolers are teaching racial bias or inaccurate science. Not by far.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
> who claim their kids would get all those "wrong" ideas (like, say, a humanistic education and values)
Yeah, but that's the thing with basic rights like this. They don't care what someone's definition of "wrong" is, because everyone has their own opinion on right vs wrong.
Re:Hey Germany (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't know how it is in Germany, but in large areas of the US, a child having the right to equal education is a pretty low standard. In my experience, there are two major groups of home schoolers: the people that don't agree with standard school doctrines, methods, and no child left alone policies, and the relative few religious nuts that create a bad name for themselves and the first group. Most schools in the southeast tend more towards holding more children back than helping them achieve a decent education, and where the public school system fails, private schools and home schooling can succeed.
If being a certified teacher requires you to teach a certain curriculum, then there would be almost no benefit to staying outside of the government sanctioned school system.
Re:Homeschooling =/= fundamentalist schooling (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You can homeschool all you want (Score:4, Insightful)
Prove to me that this isn't an elaborate holographic simulation you're living in, and then we can talk about "the truth". Truth is the regime of philosophers and theologians; anyone who thinks science is about "truth" is naive.
Re:Really, WTF?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
You're making that up. Or you're repeating things other people have made up. This is a myth that is constantly propagated on slashdot. It's one of those "everyone knows" memes that people just repeat to each other without any actual evidence because it meets their preconceived notions. The slashdotters who have children going through the school system almost invariably describe an incredibly competitive, stressful grind that is far more cutthroat than they remember from their own school days.
Re:I tend to agree (Score:5, Insightful)
The fundamental right in question would be that of the parent to raise their own children, as opposed to the State doing so.
This is unfortunately one of those rights that never got expressly enumerated in the Constitution (although in New Hampshire we're trying to fix this [nhliberty.org]) most likely because, much like a right to privacy, the idea of violating it was so beyond the pale in 1789 that no one thought it needed to be written down. What was put into the Bill of Rights were eight articles specifically in reaction to abuses committed by the British government, followed by two catch-all articles clarifying that the powers of the Federal Government are expressly enumerated (Article X), but the rights of the people are not (Article IX). Unfortunately this hasn't worked out too well in practice...
No lack of bigotry on this thread. (Score:2, Insightful)
How many homeschoolers have you people interacted with anyway? This looks like a case where you've never ever actually met one except that bad kid in the back who argues with the biology professor, who turns out to be one. You then gleefully stereotype every homeschooled kid with that same stamp, along with a few horrific rumours you imagined or picked up on the internet.
I realize there are bad cases out there, but most homeschoolers are never going to be noticed in the end because they turn out just like everybody else. They go on to get normal jobs and like like normal people. There are plenty of cases I could name where people educated in your public schools turn out to be welfare freeloaders and deadbeats.
I'm so glad I live in Canada where homeschooling is actually supported by the government and treated with marginal respect.
Now look, I've refrained from profanity, calling you Nazis, and typing in all caps. All I want in return is to not be treated like some sort of slime because I didn't grow up inside the walls of your public education system.
[/homeschooledkid]
Re:Home schooling vs. school duty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You can homeschool all you want (Score:1, Insightful)
Aww, I see, so you get to decide what morals are good for my children? I really do not think governments around the world have a good track records on teaching morals. Germany is no exception.
Re:I do it (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not know what school you went to, but at my high school it looked from my perspective that the kids just learned more about how to break the rules and get away with it then any respect for authority.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, as long as home schooling is used to shelter children from real information, or present it from a "religious perspective", it should be outlawed.
If you take issue with home schoolers presenting information from a "religious perspective" then do you also take issue with parents that choose to send their kids to Catholic school?
Re:Home schooling vs. school duty (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe there are a lot of "ultra fanatic religious" nuts who homeschool their children.
But there are also a LOT of homeschoolers that are doing it simply to help their children get real educations.
We associate with many other homeshooling families in our area and they range across a good spectrum of religious beliefs: protestant, catholic, mormon, buddhist, agnostic and atheist. Once a week the families get together for some social time and larger group learning. The adults and kids get along great, and have a great time doing fun, active learning. If anything it is the atheists that are the most fervent in bringing up religion during the co-op learning activities.
And in other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Germany sensibly determined that Scientology is a cult and outlawed it, while the US has raised it to the status of religion and given it tax-exempt status. The Germans also happen to believe that children deserve a basic education that reaches certain objective standards. Nothing prevents parents from adding to that education.
Any further comment would be superfluous.
Contradiction (Score:4, Insightful)
For those that oppose home-schooling, do they seriously think that the government does a great job of educating children? I can't believe there are so many that oppose home-schooling, yet Slashdotters in general rail on the poor quality of the American education system.
To me, home-schooling is a great alternative. Parents in general care the most about their children, not the government. Obviously there are the exception (child abusers, etc.), but that's not necessarily an argument to ban all home-schooling outright.
Seems like as long as the children can pass the standardized tests (SAT, etc.), we should support it. In fact, studies have been done that show that home-schoolers often do better than public school students. For example:
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp [hslda.org]
Anecdotally, my sister found that some colleges actually prefer home-schoolers for this reason.
Re:It's a slippery slope (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the Romeikes were just a pain in the ass, and everyone is glad they are gone. :)
Re:I do it (Score:3, Insightful)
All sorts of things.
Weekly co-operative learning with groups of other homeschooling families. Sports teams. Singing groups. Piano lessons and recitals. Scouting. Church meetings and activities. Playing with friends. ... it's not like they're trapped in the house!
Re:Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you take issue with home schoolers presenting information from a "religious perspective" then do you also take issue with parents that choose to send their kids to Catholic school?
No. I admit I only have a data point of one, but my experience with home schooling was my ex-wife's niece and nephew where home schooling consisted of 8 hours a day of "Veggie Tales" while the mom sat around the dining room table growing obese. It's really sad. The daughter actually had a quick wit and curiosity that was slowly being burned out of her by her fundamentalist, red-neck parents.
Re:It's a slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Whats wrong with packing all the religious nuts off to the New World - its traditional. Europe has been doing it for the last 400 years. :-)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
The only problem I have with homeschooling is that the vast majority of homeschooling is done by ultra fanatic religious fringe groups who claim their kids would get all those "wrong" ideas (like, say, a humanistic education and values) when they were sent to a public school.
As a christian, I've met many home-schoolers. And I don't think anyone would consider any of them to be ultra fanatic religious fringe group members. They were definitely christians, but very level-headed. I would love to be able to home school my kids. But I have to work. And my wife doesn't feel qualified to do it. So we send our kids to a private christian school.
Any time the government dictates a certain standard of anything for all children in the country, it infringes on freedom. When a population is allowed to home school, there's always a risk that some kids won't get an adequate education. But you can't legislate away bad parenting.
The next time you feel like we should outlaw home schooling, think about how you would react if a religious nut came to power and mandated that your children take a religion class in public school. Would you want to pull your kids out and educate them in the manner of your choosing?
P.S. In my kids' private christian school, they learn about evolution.
Re:Contradiction (Score:3, Insightful)
Ideally, home schooling is far superior to institutional schooling. The problem is that home schoolers are often people who are pulling their kids out of a school system that they see corrupting their children. It's not about more individual attention, it's about withdrawing from an evil society so their kids can get baked in their own oven. Christian fundamentalists, right wing militia types, granola crunching hippies--these are the face of the home school movement, and it's justifiable to wonder whether it's in the kids best interest to home school the kids for political rather than educational reasons.
My girlfriend is a high school teacher who runs into home schooled kids attending her school for certain classes, and she says that, typically, they're weird kids who've obviously spent too much time in a weird home environment and lack enough socialization to get along well once they're back in the public sphere. That's the danger of home schooling.
Re:Home schooling vs. school duty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. I admit I only have a data point of one, but my experience with home schooling was my ex-wife's niece and nephew where home schooling consisted of 8 hours a day of "Veggie Tales" while the mom sat around the dining room table growing obese. It's really sad. The daughter actually had a quick wit and curiosity that was slowly being burned out of her by her fundamentalist, red-neck parents.
Turn them in. You complain about "someone" not doing your job to fix a problem in your family (ok, your ex-family). Furrfu.
Even the most homeschool-friendly of states (such as Kentucky) allow state officials of one sort or another to investigate serious cases of educational neglect. In Kentucky, the local Director of Pupil Personnel does so (and (illegally) so do social workers). Give the officials probable cause, and they can find these people, require a written curriculum that matches state guidelines, and then arrest for truancy when that doesn't happen.
I personally prefer "lax" homeschool laws because Kentucky (at least) is notorious for having terrible school districts who start going broke because good parents pull out their kids (you know, the ones who pay per seat but don't cost much). Said districts then try to punish the good parents beyond what Kentucky law allows. OTOH, parents of troubled kids who pull their kids out instead of facing expulsion or "prison school" are encouraged to go, just to get their monsters out of the system.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. I admit I only have a data point of one, but my experience with home schooling was my ex-wife's niece and nephew where home schooling consisted of 8 hours a day of "Veggie Tales" while the mom sat around the dining room table growing obese.
My only experience with black people was getting mugged by one so I guess all black people are all criminals.
Yeah, that's a winning argument you've got there.....
Re:I do it (Score:3, Insightful)
Between church, Cub/Boy Scouts (our city has one cub scout pack made up of exclusively homeschoolers, and one boy scout troop that is about 50/50), Awanas, and volunteering at a church-based public service ministry, my kids get plenty of social interaction
So between religion, a religion based organization, another religion based organization, and volunteering for religion, your kids are well prepared to handle the real world? Seriously, get your kids some secular experiences and let them make up their own minds. They'll be much better people for it.
Re:Religion, not schooling (Score:3, Insightful)
...just because something is protected by the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment to the US Constitution does not mean it is necessarily a fundamental human right which should give rise to an asylum claim. Germany is not subject the the US Constitution.
You're right - Americans are. And so when a group of people came before an American judge and said, "We believe our rights are being violated, so we want to move here," the judge said, "Based on our laws and our constitution, I agree. Come on in."
It will be more interesting when Muslims from France make the same claim...
P.S. Also, if you're going to enshrine "human rights" in your constitution, you should extend them to all humans in your domain, not just citizens. Otherwise, admit the truth and call them "citizens' rights".
Re:Hey Germany (Score:3, Insightful)
We used to call it Karma, but then we devolved into just up-modding jokes or things we agreed with and down-modding anything we didn't like and now it's just a way of preening ourselves on how good we are.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
The religious--even the godless religious--always advocate regulating conscience in favor of absolutism. To them, "real information" is a definite known. It is "truth." The True Believer will not tolerate competition. It's easy to spot true believers; I have enough true believer in me to recognize the language. It's full of "outlaw" and "ban" and other such hate talk.
Fortunately for Americans, we have the "Establishment clause" which is designed to protect a certain basic right of conscience from the well-meaning but misguided people who know what is true and best for everyone else. It doesn't matter if one's religion is godless, as the modern secularism is; it is anything but irreligious. Parents have a right to their children, their own flesh and blood; to pass on their traditions and beliefs as they see fit. Contrary to the religious fanatics of all persuasions, we need not all be the same.
no good answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia has statistics which fly in the face of most of the posts on this topic here today. Homeschooled kids are much more likely to enter college and to graduate from college than publicly schooled kids. Further, only about 33% of parents cited religious reasons for homeschooling, whereas the slashdot fear factor seems to be that everyone who is homeschooled is so that they can instill intolerance, religious bigotry, and an abhorrence for all secular learning.
If homeschoolers are taught that the Bible is right and science is wrong, then why do home schoolers score better on college entry exams in science (and math, and English), than publicly schooled children? Are they clever enough to hold knowledge of creationism along with darwinism? Well, good for them!
It's great that everybody here has the right to share their opinion and all, but when the facts fly in the face of the opinions, then you just need to shut up and admit you're wrong.
Re:No story here (Score:3, Insightful)
The ethics of progressive thought is that all ethics are equal, none is superior to another. Except when those other "ethics" conflict with the ethics of progressives, in which case they are intolerant.
The humorous thing is, in expressing tolerance for all, while also expressing intolerance for those ethics that are rigid, the progressives thought is hypocritical at best.
Which is simply put this way ... "Progressive ethics are the only ethics that are ethical" which is just as dogmatic as the ethics they reject for being too dogmatic.
You can see the result of this in the form of Political Correctness. You're free to say anything as long as it fits the PC crowd's ideas of what speech is protected.
Re:No story here (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, obviously other religions can't offer any ethical guidance, and exposing the kids to them will clearly cause them to hate Christianity. Better not even expose them to other thoughts! And the best place to go for that? Here in the US.
Who the hell are YOU -- or any government -- to deprive the parents of their right to make that choice? Ridicule it all you want, but it is THEIR choice.
Re:Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
My only experience with black people was getting mugged by one so I guess all black people are all criminals.
Yeah, that's a winning argument you've got there.....
But surely you'd lend weight to the experience of thousands of people mugged by black people.
Re:Home schooling vs. school duty (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll just point out that, even with that social environment, some of us still don't learn the necessary cues. Some of us end up learning the cues the really hard way in adult life. Some of us end up having never learned the cues at all.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
The basis of your argument in your first paragraph appears to be that belief is equal, regardless of what that belief is in. E.g. Whether someone believes in "Science" or believes in "Religion X", it is still belief and those holding those beliefs share a "kinship". This seems false to me. Why should belief separate from that which is believed in be the unit of comparison? Doesn't it make more sense to say that "belief in X" should be compared with "belief in Y" without the object of belief being discarded? If so, then there are important distinctions between a belief in science and a belief in a religion. Namely an evidential basis.
Now I don't see science and religion as exclusive. I am both myself for example. But I don't think you can pick two hypothetical people who strongly believe in something and equate those beliefs without considering what they believe in. At least not usefully. That sort of relativism is dangerous.
Re:You can homeschool all you want (Score:4, Insightful)
The only stipulation here is that the kids are taught in a classroom setting by certified teachers according to a strict curriculum.
Your stipulation is considered and rejected.
Parents have plenty of rights, but the right to destroy their kid's future by teaching them anti-science and borderline racist interpretations of history ought not be one.
The logical error you are perpetrating here is that gov't is an adequate judge of what "destroys" a kid's future, what is "anti-science," or what is a "racist" interpretation of history. It's not. I am a much better judge than government of what is, and is not, a good education for my children; and more to the point, perhaps, government has no right whatsoever to tell me otherwise.
We have whole states here in the US that are filled with nincompoops because of homeschooling.
You are, of course, making that up. When you invent something like that in this context, it certainly doesn't help your argument about what education for children should be.
Homeschooling begets more homeschooling in an endless cycle.
There's not much evidence of this, actually, since it's only a recent phenomena on a significant scale. So again, you're making it up. (Although since you've not in the least bit demonstrated that homeschooling is bad in any way whatsoever, you also give no one any reason to think this purported "cycle" is a bad one.)
When you try to push morals and religion into education you end up with none of the above.
Oh come on. That doesn't even make a lick of sense. You're literally saying that morals and religion can't be taught.
Re:No story here (Score:1, Insightful)
So, using the same kind of empty reasoning, you must surely be in favor of abortions and corporal punishment.
After all, who the hell are YOU -- or any government -- to deprive the parents of their right to make that choice?
Hint: Children have rights, too.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No story here (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No story here (Score:1, Insightful)
Children aren't property.
Re:Reasons to Homeschool (Score:3, Insightful)
So... out of curiosity, what would have been an appropriate response for a curious 10 year old? I mean, counseling actually strikes me as the appropriate response.
Granted, I know nothing of the circumstances. But I'd really know what you'd expect the school system to do. Expel the child? Have him arrested?
Re:No story here (Score:2, Insightful)
What about the rights of the children? I don't think that parents "own" their children, and should be allowed to do with them in whatever way they want. Sure, parents should take care of their kids until they are old enough to really make well-informed own decisions.
The idea behind enforcing that all children are sent to a school (which by the way, includes many alternate school forms, not just the regular state schools, as many people here claim incorrectly) is that this way, all kids are ensured a chance to get suitable education. And moreover, to have a chance to learn how to socialize with other people, too. To learn to live with people who have different believes and opinions side by side, and respect them. In my class, there were christians, atheists, muslims. I grew up knowing that there are many different kinds of people out there, and that yet they are (mostly ;) normal people you can have great fun with and like. Not enemies, as many religions paint any non-believers, sadly.
Maybe the current way of forcing all kids in Germany to visit some kind of school is not the best. But then I also don't believe that allowing parents to isolate their children and to indoctrinate them is a good idea, either -- no matter whether it is orthodox Christianity, radical Islam, zealous Science-believe, or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The foundation of a democracy is mutual understanding and a willingness to cooperate with each other, and I feel that's more important than granting a universal home schooling right, with all its pros and cons.
Re:No story here (Score:3, Insightful)
Parenting should and is regulated.
False on both counts. Parenting should NOT be regulated, and -- in the U.S. anyway -- it really is not. At least, not in the same sense "regulation" usually means. There are very few laws that describe what parents (or anyone else) *cannot* do to children, but even fewer that describe what parents *must* do for their children.
There are some exceptions: education, sometimes vaccinations, and so on. But parents are ultimately charged with raising their children, and have the fundamental human right to ignore what the government says on such matters.
I've never believed in the idea that parents somehow "own" their children.
That's a straw man, since ownership is not being pushed by anyone that I've seen. I do not "own" my children, but I do have the right -- and sacred duty -- to raise them how I see fit.
If the parents don't give a neutral, healthly upbringing then the government should step in and take the children away.
That assumes the government has any right or capability to decide what IS "neutral, healthy upbringing." It does not.
And neutral is generally a stupid concept anyway. I do very little that is neutral, and I do not believe neutrality is a rational way to raise children.
There is no "right religion" to choose
False. Of course there is.
they shouldn't brainwash the children into any religion
If by "brainwash" you mean parents cannot teach their children that Jesus Christ is their Savior who died for their sins, then you're wrong. This is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Re:Public "education" isn't (Score:5, Insightful)
As an elementary school teacher myself, I have to respond.
The first lesson I teach is: "Stay in the class where you belong."
True, but I could also say the first lesson is "You have to learn and not only play. Let's face it, they are kids and they want to play. They don't care about maths, science, politics, music, etc. They want to play. Ask any kid what they'd rather do between learning and playing, and they'll want to play. As a teacher, I have to make sure I teach in a fun and playful way so that it becomes almost like a game, if not a game itself, but it's a hell of a challenge.
The second lesson I teach kids is to turn on and off like a light switch.
True and false. In the morning we might do maths, then in the afternoon we might do grammar. It's still too long for the kids, yet too short for the teacher. So, I understand that as adults we might perceive this has forcing them to turn on and off as required, but the kids need variety. They don't have the attention and patience adults have. I say, let's finish the cool project tomorrow instead of doing everything the same day and being bored with it at the end of the day.
The third lesson I teach you is to surrender your will to a predestined chain of command.
Parents already do this before elementary school. It's part of learning how to behave. It's not my place to say if it is good or bad, but we are not living in an anarchist's society. We have a hierarchy in the real world. If kids can't listen to the teacher, will they even bother to willfully follow the laws of society? And would that be good or bad? That's an unfinished debate.
The fourth lesson I teach is that only I determine what curriculum you will study.
Well, yes. Anyway, kids that age are not ready to teach themselves. They only want to play after all. So, at that age you have to enforce it and explain to them that knowing many things is important. A minority of kids are different. It is true that those truly gifted are stuck in the system. I'd prefer it if kids wanted to learn by themselves, but almost every kid don't. The result is that the current system is excellent for almost everyone, except for kids that are slow and for kids that are too fast. You give interesting extra work for the fast ones and try to mentor the slow ones, but it's a heck of a job. Right now, this might not be perfect, but it's a good way to do things.
In lesson five I teach that your self-respect should depend on an observer's measure of your worth.
In a way, this is becoming false. If your job is to teach someone to make coffee, there will be many objective criteria that will tell you if the endeavor is a success or a failure. So, what's the problem? On the other hand, if he's criticizing the fact that he's being compared to others to know if he is worth something or not, this is not the case anymore. (At least, not in Quebec). This self-worth problem happens when kids want good marks to impress others, and not when they are intrinsically motivated to master the task at hand. I'm not fond of means and medians and telling kids how successful they are compared to others. This is a private thing. They should try to master the tasks and be motivated to be the best they can. On the other hand, this is completely destroyed when they want to go to university where marks are extremely important. You might say, elementary schools are "ahead" of the rest since it's easier to change how we do things. Try to tell the medical department of your university to not look at marks, but to instead compare the motivations, projects, extra work and personal home researches the students have done. It's too much work for them. It's much more easy to scan a list of students and call those above a certain mark.
In lesson six I teach children that they are being watched.
And this is bad because? If you don't remind kids they are at school, that bathroom break takes an hour. Give me a break...
Re:Home schooling vs. school duty (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's what I think is wrong with 100% of all the religious people in the world. They think their children are clay that they must mold according to their beliefs.
And the state doesn't?
Re:Home schooling vs. school duty (Score:3, Insightful)
My wife and I love Germany and had considered expatriating there until the practical issues of raising children presented themselves. Later in my life the theoretical "freedom issues" are also an obstacle, and seem to explain the practical problem.
Murray Rothbard has an easy read called "Education, Free and Compulsory" that details the historical context, motivations, and key figures in the development of public education throughout world history. Starting with [to keep it local!] Mr Martin Luther.
The key emergent theme in public and compulsory education is not so often the "well being" of the children, although that is how it is often wrapped up, but asserting the relevant authorities "interest" in shaping the indoctrination of all persons. In the earliest systems it was the Church, and a great deal of public education had to deal with [both sides] trying to gain new supporters in the Calvinist vs. Lutheran struggle.
The history of public education is less religiously themed in the US; as in most of the world the religious hierarchy of the day was superceded by the all-powerful state as the new religion. Writings of early public education advocates in the US all talk about the need to shape and mold the child in order to conform to the purposes of the state; some suggest that children ought to universally be taken from parents so that they can be in the proper educational environment 24 hours per day.
Rothbard [as usual] is an interesting read here, but there are many others who deal at a much less theoretical/epistemological level.
The key issue is that in Germany, irrespective of what "hoops" you say exist to "let" parents homeschool, the position of the state is that children belong to the state, not the parents, and should the parents meet a sufficient number of criteria, the state will _permit_ parents to indoctrinate children in the only approved manner -- the one that serves the interests and ideology of the state.
A contrasting idea is that the state ought not to compel any particular ideology on anyone, least of all children, and that the state does not "own" children whatsoever, and as such has no actual say in the manner or content of the child's education.
I find that the best litmus test of the totalitarian tendencies of the state are as follows:
- does the state permit individual firearms ownership that bypass any allegience or subservience to the state?
- does the state permit parents to wholly control the nature and content of how children are to be raised and educated?
Theshort versions are: permissive gun laws annd permissive homeschooling laws are good indicators of a society that is "truly" free, that is, individuals are free to do things that the state may find distasteful.
In my view, the right way to think of individual freedom, and to compare/constrast different societies, is not by considering how broad the list of behaviors considered "permissible" by society is, but how tolerant the society is of behaviors it popularly considers non-permissible.
Said differently, I would consider a society that has a singular ideology of "almost anything goes" to be less free than a society that says "we don't care what your ideology is".
Germany, and most European nations, fair poorly on the challenge of tolerating differing ideologies. This is normally not a problem for most people, because the prevailing ideology is quite liberal and permissive in what they consider "normal". Yet the fair bit of socio-political unity in Western Europe since the end of WW2 has allowed it to postpone some of the teething problems that the US has and continues to deal with. The most visible effects of this is how european countries attempt to retain their identity in the face of an influx of Muslims who do not conform or integrate into their traditional politics and culture. The legal responses taken by different european nations to this specific problem are interesting, to say the least.
There are certainly Muslims in the US that would
Re:Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
They think their children are clay that they must mold according to their beliefs.
Irrelevant to what is being discussed. Let me say it slowly. You want to compel parents to teach their children what you want ("real truth"). I say parents can make those decisions themselves.
Here's your first lesson in Human Rights: YOUR CHILDREN ARE **NOT** YOUR PROPERTY
Children are not anyones property but their care is the RESPONSIBILITY of the parent, not you (unless you are the parent). This is not a question of who's property are they it is a question of who is responsible for them. If my child destroys your property it is my responsibility. Not because they are my property, but rather because I am responsible for them.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
For what it's worth, during most of that period the options were basically home school or no school.
No surprise then that schooling beats non-existent schooling.
Re:Second Opinion (Score:2, Insightful)
Because it's slashdot and you mentioned religion without bashing it, and that is anathema to the progressive groupthink located here.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
When religion puts a person on the moon, or when a priest receives schematics for a new invention via divine inspiration, or when a faith healer cures anything in a controlled environment then perhaps I'll start listening.
Science works; science delivers the goods. That's the difference.
Re:Home schooling vs. school duty (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Home schooling vs. school duty (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed.. but of course that's assuming you're socially competent enough to be able to have a spouse in the first place. Hell, I'm having a hard enough time even getting a date.
Re:Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Christian Activist Judges Make Me Sick (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it isn't, not in America anyway. I doubt it is in any country anywhere.
Society has put limits on this 'right', in order to protect children from extremists and idiots. You are allowed a certain level of freedom, but we as a society have said that we only allow it to a certain level and you must comply with some basic standards for education so your child can eventually have the opportunity to make their own decisions without being brainwashed by you to only believe YOUR viewpoints. You are also required to teach them certain specific things if you want to teach them yourself.
Its a compromise between letting you teach your children your beliefs and preventing you from making them nutjobs (which doesn't require a prefix of religious, there are plenty of other ways to be intolerant bastards). You can teach them and educate them your way, but you also have to expose them to certain other bits of knowledge that we as a society have decided that EVERYONE should know.
Re:Home schooling vs. school duty (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
*("police to escort them to classes")
Re:Near-age peers (Re:Home schooling vs. school du (Score:3, Insightful)
I heard that a Canadian study on home schooling was recently released and they found very positive results. The results showed that home schooled children were better community citizens (charities, gave time, etc). The study found nothing wrong with their social skills.
When the World Trade Center got hit by airplanes, and people were in panic and looking for leadership, the primary message from the establishment was not "Help your neighbours". It was not "Be charitable". It was "Keep shopping". This should give you an idea what the establishments priorities are, why public schools are the way they are, and what kind of adults they are intended to mold children into.
If you trust the disciples of Ayn Rand and John Nash to administer the education of your children, you shouldn't be surprised if they turn into psychopaths.
Re:It's a slippery slope (Score:3, Insightful)
But somehow I see this opening a whole new can of worms. Now Germany is going to restrict people flying to the U.S. - based on facts about children and schooling, and likewise, people might run away to the US claiming they are doing it for their children as opposed to some ulterior motive (other more heineous crimes).
No it does not, lol. Germany and USA have different laws regarding schooling your kids, fine. You miss the point that germany still nevertheless is a "constitutional state" or a "free government under the law". In other words there is no legal way for the state to prevent parents and kids to travel. After all we live in a free country like the US citizens alike.
Many parents that do want home schooling and are in trouble with the law exactly do that. They just live in a different land of the european union where "home schooling" is allowed.
In other words, that particular family did not need to flee germany and did not need to apply for political asylum in the USA.
However the funny thing, in two ways about this is: first they don't need to go through the awkward process in getting a green card, they just apply for asylum which is probably much easier and secondly it is really a slap into the face of our politicians (yes I'm german).
I don't agree that parents have the right to educate their children as they like (it sometimes sounds as if you could do that in the USA everywhere). I strongly believe that there need to be levels, guidelines, tests, common standards or what ever.
However, to give everyone, especially the US and other oversees guys an idea. The law has old roots. The earliest laws about "school duty" (can you say that?) where formulated between 1592, 1598 and 1681 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulpflicht/ [wikipedia.org] and finally in Preußen (Prussia) at 1717 and Bayern (Bavaria) 1763.
Those laws where badly necessary as the already existing schools where avoided, parents found it more important to send 6 year old kids working in dangerous factories, mines, or mechanized manufactories.
The problems in our days now is that this is no longer appropriated. There are enough examples of home schooled kids where the 5 the 7 and the 12 year old boys learn together. And they do their homework together. And it show that the typical level of an 18 years old making his "final secondary-school examinations" can be reached easily at the age of 15 or 16, because learning at (provided the parents can give that education) is 100% more effective than a standard school, if not even more.
I have seen examples of such families last weeks in TV (because there is a growing movement of "home schoolers" who try to resist the current politicians) where the youngest (like 7 or 9) plays several instruments, speaks about 5 foreign languages can write in all but one of them, is strongly interested in math and physics and is just to smart to be put into a normal school. The oldest basically made "final secondary-school examinations" at age of 16 (normal is 18 - 19) and is now doing a apprenticeship as carpenter because he is basically to young to visit an university ... either to skip time or he just likes carpentry ;D
angel'o'sphere
Re:Homeschooling =/= fundamentalist schooling (Score:3, Insightful)
What I find particularly funny is that
Re:National spelling bee as an objective criterion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Home schooling vs. school duty (Score:3, Insightful)
Public schooling in the US has a lot of problems, and the foremost of them is that in many cases the children are more intelligent than their teachers
This is a major issue, and I feel that I was very lucky in that I had parents who were active in my education when I came home from school. The worst is when your teachers aren't just stupid, they're vindictive. I [mostly] dodged that one, but my brother, who is both a non-traditional learner and brilliant, was repeatedly singled out and punished by teachers who didn't understand what he was saying. Fortunately he stuck with it, and is now at the point where his employer is paying him just to do his graduate work. Take that, teachers!
There are many good teachers, but they are vastly outnumbered by the mediocre and bad teachers. Given the time it takes to become a teacher, the arbitrary hoops that must be jumped through, the daily work politics, and the relatively low pay, I'm not surprised that good teachers are hard to find. The incentives really are geared toward keeping people who are committed to a life of doing the bare minimum.
My wife and I probably will not send our children to public school when the time comes.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
They are taught that their value as a person is dependent on their academic performance, and they are held to a standard that most cannot meet. As a result, many children are told that they are worthless, simply because they are not proficient at math or reading or some other thing.
Um, that situation is thousands of times better than the school I attended, where academic performance was practically frowned upon, as simply stating you got a good grade on an exam could be interpreted as an insult to your peers. I'm in college now and I live in constant fear of alienating all of my classmates when they ask my GPA and I have to tell them 4.00.
The only metric that was considered valuable was athletic performance, and those who did not perform were deemed "worthless." I would rather have intelligent kids receive positive reenforcement for their scholastic success than idiots receive positive reenforcement in spite of their scholastic failures.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
What it comes down to here is whether or not you support my freedom to practice my religion the way I see fit. Saying that I can believe whatever I want but that I must live the way you say is as contradiction.
Personally, I fully support the right of any free thinking adult to dictate the course of their own life.
I do not support their right to force their ideology onto their children, who are not capable of making those choices for themselves.
I also admit there is no solution which protects children from any kind of indoctrination, and it would be foolish to argue that one method is better than the other, as there can be no real metric.
Re:Home schooling vs. school duty (Score:4, Insightful)
None of this prevented me from getting high SAT/ACT scores, or getting into the exclusive Honors Program at Seattle University, arguably one of the most respected schools in the state, and the program only takes 25 students per year, selected in ultimately by interview. It didn't prevent me from landing me decent-paying job and marrying a truly wonderful (and non-religious) woman who makes even more than I do.
I don't like Christianity, and I'm not going to encourage any exposure of my daughter to it, but I'm not about to place myself in position to dictate to people how they should live their lives. That makes you no better than a moralist religious nutjob yourself.
Re:No story here (Score:3, Insightful)
A person that believes Abraham Lincoln talks to him is going to meet some definition of a mental illness. But replace that invisible friend with a more popular invisible friend, and it's suddenly not a mental illness? There is no "proof" of any mental illness. You look in the DSM and evaluate the symptoms and if they meet it the criteria, it's true, if not, it's false. It's not a proof, it's a definition. But I think they did put in exceptions for religion so that the nutters wouldn't claim that diagnostic tools "proved" religion was a mental illness all the atheists wanted to cure them of.
I'll humor you though: give me one example of evidence that religion is schizophrenia.
Read the current version of the DSM, paying attention to the schizophrenia entry. If you don't know what the DSM is, then you aren't competent to doubt him. To claim he is wrong without even knowing where the definition is found proves that you have no interest in the truth.
Re:No story here (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the German government *does* have that right, since all rights exist solely by consensus. If a German citizen doesn't like that, they are free to leave, or lobby for radical change in their government. The system is working as designed.
Nonsense. If you subscribe to this view, that government can do anything the that consensus exists for ... killing six million Jews, for example. Individual rights do not exist by consensus.
Re:Home schooling vs. school duty (Score:3, Insightful)
> The question is who gets to decide what a "real-world education" is. And it's not
> government.
A "real-world education" would enable the children to be able to be in some kind valuable to other people in order to survive, when their parents arent around any more.
The reasoning for removing Romeikes kids from the school here was solely in order to prevent the whole rest of society from showing them that there is a life outside of religion, that there are children with other religions and (shock) children with no religion at all. It was to prevent questions like "Mommy, daddy, the other children in our class dont have to pray 10000 a day, why do we?".
It absolutely had nothing to do with any kind of education _quality_.
>> Except it isn't if you're removing your children from the society, culture and from
>> knowledge they need to later live in and as a part of this society.
> False.
Obviously religion doesnt trump children rights everywhere, since they otherwise wouldnt have to leave not only Germany, but basically whole of Europe.
> You are apparently, by your vile and ignorant words against religion, an atheist.
And you are apparanetly, by your vile and ignorant words against reason, a theist.
> What if you lived in a theistic nation, where government decided to force everyone to
> follow a certain religion?
How exactly is that different from parents deciding to force all their children to follow their religion and in order to prevent real-world contamination, incarcerate them for life josef fritzl style?
> It does not get to decide if our kids are of a certain religion, or if they learn
> Spanish, or if they learn about evolution or global warming.
But it decides if you try to prevent your kids to get a education they need to survive once they (shock) decide to leave your walled religion garden.
> There's no evidence that teaching your children to follow your religion screws them up
> in any way.
Forcefully removing them from school, contacts other (different) kids, books, knowledge and so on _does_ screw them up.
>You're being competely irrational, and you're just making things up.
If I were making things up, the Romeikes would have been able to stay home, lock their kids up and threw the keys away. But they arent. So draw your conclusions.
Re:No story here (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you, to an outsider, convince them that your invisible friend is real when someone else's isn't? The answer is no, so by all objective means, believing in God is the same as believing in an invisible pink elephant who follows you around everywhere. I'm not arguing what is or isn't real. I'm examining what a detached observer would observe.
That's MY line to YOU.
You state I'm non religious, then when I bring up that you are being an ass about your position and should probably go back to the church's guidelines on answering criticism, you tell me that I need to go study the church's guidelines on answering criticism? I've been there. You obviously haven't. You have just enough information about everything to be dangerous. You strike me as a really intelligent 12 year old. You have knowledge, but the emotional maturity of an 8 year old, and the inability to make a point without unintentionally mocking yourself and the person you are talking to.