Slashdot Mirror
US Grants Home Schooling German Family Political Asylum
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."
... to all the people who have education problems in other countries? I think we should: all afghani girls who for years could not go to school (did we give asylum to all that requested?), all the africans who cannot go to school because of social problems (did we give asylum to all that requested?), etc. Clearly shows how racist and politically biased the courts are: a group of (likely) right wing white people always get precedence over some poor 3rd world, brown-skinned, poor fellow...
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.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
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.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Yes, it was clearly the US they were targeting. If they wanted to home-school their German-speaking children, they could easily and freely moved to Switzerland (the eastern part of the country speaks German). No political asylum needed, much cheaper to travel. Also their kids could speak with their new-found friends, and read books, and watch TV, without a huge learning curve.
From TFA, it appears that the actual basis for asylum here is freedom of religion, not freedom to home-school. The parents pulled their children from public school because they are fundamentalist Christians and objected to elements of the public school's curriculum, including sex education and morality lessons drawn from other religions. The German government apparently does not recognize a parent's right to "protect" children from opposing religious views through home-schooling, and intended to compel attendance. The US recognizes this as an aspect of free exercise of religion, which can form the basis for an asylum petition. Thus, they are actually obtaining asylum on religious persecution grounds. Whether these facts actually establish a valid instance of religious persecution or not is perhaps an important question; 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.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
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.)
Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
> 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.
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.
Alright, I didn't think it would come to this on slashdot, but this must be understood.
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.
It's always confirmation bias!
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) 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...
Liberty in your lifetime
There are a lot of us who home-school for non-religious reasons... Please quit perpetuating a bad stereotype. Some of us simply care about the the pace our children are learning things, and about the quality and content of the education. We (my wife and I) are not doing anything "special" or worthy of bragging about in terms of spectacular teaching - yet our kids test well beyond other kids their age in math and reading, and they can tell you all sorts of things about classic literature, history, logic/reasoning, and geography, that very few other kids under 10 years old have even heard of. Reducing the student/teacher ratio, and cutting out the crap makes a big, big difference.
"A valuable part of being in school was learning how to interact with new people, larger groups, and authority respectfully and responsibly."
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.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
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
Anecdotally, my sister found that some colleges actually prefer home-schoolers for this reason.
"The majority is always wrong; the minority is rarely right." - Henrik Ibsen
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. :-)
Big fan of home schooling myself, however the biggest problem with home schooling isn't the quality of education. It is the lack of socialization. Home school kids are massively underdeveloped socially, they miss out on a lot of cues that the rest of the population learned the hard way in social environment.
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.
So are there statistics which prove out that homeschooled kids are more likely to end up in jail than publicly schooled kids? Because I would be willing to bet tht it is vastly skewed in the other direction.
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.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
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...
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.
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.