Tuesday, 26 June 2012
Using Hitler’s image to promote home education
I viewed recently on Youtube a short film made by home educators. I mentally counted the seconds until mention was made of Hitler. He duly made an appearance after a mere twenty seven seconds. Here is the film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDDD2ob8iKE
The ancient piece of nonsense is trotted out here, that Hitler banned home education and that Sweden has introduced a law based upon the Nazi one prohibiting home education. I have remarked before that there is something horribly tacky about using Hitler and the Holocaust to promote some hobby or favourite cause. Perhaps a look at the facts might show us why this business about Hitler banning home education is not true.
In 1938 the Nazis passed a law about education, the Gesetz über die Schulpflicht im Deutschen Reich. This made school compulsory, but just like the 1944 Education Act in this country, it contained an exemption clause for those who wished to have their children educated at home; (1) Zum Besuch der Volksschule sind alle Kinder verpflichtet, soweit nicht für ihre Erziehung und Unterweisung in anderer Weise ausreichend gesorgt ist. Roughly translated, this means that children had to attend school unless their education and training was otherwise provided out of school.
I hope that this will bring to an end the idea that ‘Hitler banned home education’. There was very little home education in Germany, for historical reasons. It was not banned under Hitler and claims that it was are just a trick by home educators to associate laws regulating home education with the Nazis. Just to recap, Hitler did not ban home education in Germany and no law was ever passed by the Nazis to do so; anybody who says that this is the case is deliberately setting out to mislead those who know nothing of German history.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"It was not banned under Hitler and claims that it was are just a trick by home educators to associate laws regulating home education with the Nazis."
ReplyDeleteA trick? Why, why, why, do you always assume the worst about home educators? Your version may well be correct, but since so many non-HE web sites state the opposite, I don't really think it's fair to blame home educators for this particular piece of misinformation! Here's an example of a site, http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1389
Monk, in his paper 'Problematising home education: challenging ‘parental rights’ and 'socialisation'', published in the peer reviewed journal, Legal Studies, also states that home education is illegal in Germany.
The BBC states:
"Exceptions are extremely rare and will be made in cases of ill health, but never on religious grounds or to allow for alternative methods of learning."
So maybe it's the case that HE is technically legal, but to all intents and purposes, for people like you and me, it isn't.
'Monk, in his paper 'Problematising home education: challenging ‘parental rights’ and 'socialisation'', published in the peer reviewed journal, Legal Studies, also states that home education is illegal in Germany.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC states:
"Exceptions are extremely rare and will be made in cases of ill health, but never on religious grounds or to allow for alternative methods of learning."'
Yes, things were tightened up considerably under the Federal Republic.
'A trick? Why, why, why, do you always assume the worst about home educators?'
Because Hitler is often produced as an example of why opposition to home education is wrong and comparable to the actions of the Nazis. It is a deliberate piece of propaganda, designed to smear those who seek regulation of home education. It is untrue and yet few people could be expected to know that it is untrue. There may be an innocent explanantion for this, but the simplest is that it is such a good tactic that, regardless of whether it is true, it should be used. Have you forgotten the cartoon on Youtube of Graham Badman reading Mein Kampf? Calling it a 'trick' is being charitable; it is black propaganda.
"Have you forgotten the cartoon on Youtube of Graham Badman reading Mein Kampf? Calling it a 'trick' is being charitable; it is black propaganda."
ReplyDeleteIt's only a trick if the person knows it to be untrue and you say yourself that few people could be expected to know it is untrue. Make your mind up.
'It's only a trick if the person knows it to be untrue and you say yourself that few people could be expected to know it is untrue. Make your mind up.'
ReplyDeleteI meant of course that few of the mugs upon whom this decepetion is practiced could be expected to know that it is true! I dare say that those who devised this particular falsehood have some idea about the business.
"I dare say that those who devised this particular falsehood have some idea about the business."
DeleteAnd this is based on what evidence? We already know you have a very low opinion of home educators. I suspect this belief of yours is a product of this.
"I dare say that those who devised this particular falsehood have some idea about the business."
DeleteAhh, a conspiracy theory in the making!
Maybe you should get in touch with the Law Library of Congress and let them know that home education is legal in Germany.
ReplyDelete"Attendance at school is mandatory for all children in Germany from the age of six until the age of eighteen, and home schooling is not permissible."
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/child-rights/germany.php#Education
And you are surprised that home educators don't know?
'Maybe you should get in touch with the Law Library of Congress and let them know that home education is legal in Germany.'
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I feel that I am wading through treacle. The myth is that home education was banned by the Nazis. This is not true. This is an entirely different matter from the current actions of the Federal Government.
'We already know you have a very low opinion of home educators. I suspect this belief of yours is a product of this.'
ReplyDeleteAn odd thing to say to a fanatically dedicated home educator whose daughter did not attend school for a single day! I assume that those who dreamed up the notion that the Nazis banned home education must have read the orginal law; the Gesetz über die Schulpflicht im Deutschen Reich. Having done this, they would have known of the exemption clause and then decided not to tell anybody about it. This strongly suggests deception, which is why I used the word 'trick' to describe it. The other possibility is that they did not bother to read the the original law and were just talking nonsense off the top of their heads. This would mean that many of the leading figures in British home education are complete and utter turnip-heads; not an hypothesis which I wish to entertain!
"I assume that those who dreamed up the notion that the Nazis banned home education must have read the orginal law; the Gesetz über die Schulpflicht im Deutschen Reich."
DeleteHighly unlikely. They probably just read the newspapers or reviews of education law in peer reviewed journals.
Or maybe the The Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law article, HOMESCHOOLING IN GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES, http://www.ajicl.org/AJICL2010/7.27.1Martin.pdf
Delete"Georgia and Tennessee took such an unprecedented stand because currently, homeschooling is illegal in Germany. German students must attend school beginning at six years old and continue for at least nine years."
"But attacks on individual liberty and freedom, especially in the context of education, are not a new development in Germany. They are, in fact, vestiges of Germany’s totalitarian regime in the early 20th century."
"'We already know you have a very low opinion of home educators. I suspect this belief of yours is a product of this.'
DeleteAn odd thing to say to a fanatically dedicated home educator whose daughter did not attend school for a single day!"
Why should the fact that you were a fanatically dedicated home educator be evidence that you do not have a low opinion of home educator? Your claim that the majority of home educators in the UK use an education method that is causing incalculable harm to children suggests otherwise.
Another non-HE source.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/feb/27/20070227-084730-5162r/
The Washington Times
"Home-schooling has been illegal in Germany since Adolf Hitler outlawed it in 1938 and ordered all children to be sent to state schools."
'The Washington Times
ReplyDelete"Home-schooling has been illegal in Germany since Adolf Hitler outlawed it in 1938 and ordered all children to be sent to state schools."'
Yes, there is a lot of igonrance in the world and newspaper reporters often don't bother to check their facts. This is the point that you were making, one assumes?
You assume a benign reason for reporters not checking their facts, but do not accord the same courtesy to home educators. You say the Nazi brought in the law on education in 1938. It is generally accepted that the current law in Germany makes home education illegal by peer reviewed journals of law and human rights courts. It seems a reasonable conclusion that Adolf Hitler outlawed HE in 1938.
DeleteWell you would know.
DeleteWhoops! Make that 3:22!
Delete"But attacks on individual liberty and freedom, especially in the context of education, are not a new development in Germany. They are, in fact, vestiges of Germany’s totalitarian regime in the early 20th century."
ReplyDeleteI don’t understand why anybody would take the least notice of a lot of ignorant nonsense like this. Hoem education has never been popular in Germany and there has been opposition to it for hundreds of years. This has nothing to do with the Nazis though.
Until the middle of the Nineteenth Century, what we today call Germany was a collection of small kingdoms and states; Mecklenburg, Bavaria, Hesse and Saxony, to name a few. The largest and most influential of these kingdoms was Prussia, which included Westphalia, Pomerania and Silesia. Bismarck was a Prussian statesman from Brandenburg who unified many of these little states into one country called Germany. His aim was that the other German states would be submerged into Prussia, not that Prussia would be submerged in Germany. A consequence of this is that a lot of what we call typically German now is actually typically Prussian, rather than German per se.
Prussia had adopted compulsory education, or to be more exact compulsory schooling, under Frederick II in 1763, well over a hundred years before Hitler was born. By the time that Britain passed the Forster Act providing for compulsory education, Prussia had long been a byword for its compulsory schools. The Newcastle report on education in 1861 made reference to the Prussian system and thought it a bad idea.
Gradually, in keeping with Bismarck's ideas of forming the new nation of Germany in Prussia's image, the laws of the other little states were over ruled by Prussian laws. By 1900, the process was more or less complete and the whole of Germany followed the Prussian system in practically everything, including compulsory schooling. The way some people talk about the Nazis introducing the law on compulsory schooling, one would think that Weimar was a thriving hotbed of autonomous home education. It was of course nothing of the sort. Schooling was compulsory everywhere, because that was how it had been in Prussia for over a hundred years.
After the end of World War I, the Weimar Republic passed a law making school compulsory. As a result, the allgemeine Schulpflicht, was passed in Germany, in Article 145 of the Constitution of the Weimar Republic. However, an exemption was included in article 146 for those who wished to have their children taught at home. Just like the ‘or otherwise’ bit of the 1944 Education Act which gave home educators their loophole.
The Nazis have nothing to do with the case and are only introduced into debates on home education so that idiots like those who made the film I mention above, Walking to Freedom, have an excuse to include footage of Hitler.
And we should believe you in preference you peer reviewed, referenced journal articles because...?
DeleteSimon wrote,
ReplyDelete"The Nazis have nothing to do with the case"
and Simon wrote,
"In 1938 the Nazis passed a law about education, the Gesetz über die Schulpflicht im Deutschen Reich."
You can't have it both ways.
'Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"The Nazis have nothing to do with the case"
and Simon wrote,
"In 1938 the Nazis passed a law about education, the Gesetz über die Schulpflicht im Deutschen Reich."
You can't have it both ways.'
By saying that the Nazis had nothing to do with the case, I meant to convey that they had nothing to do with banning or even discouraging home education. They certainly passed an Education Act, similar in many ways to the one passed a few years later in this country; the 1944 Education Act. If anybody suggested that Winston Churchill banned home education, it would be regarded as a grotesque fiction, because in fact the 1944 act provided the legal basis for home education in this country. It was precisely the same with the 1938 act passed in Germany.
'You assume a benign reason for reporters not checking their facts'
ReplyDeleteIf you view slapdash research in the cause of playing to the gallery as being benign, then yes, I suppose you are right.
' You say the Nazi brought in the law on education in 1938. It is generally accepted that the current law in Germany makes home education illegal '
I do not have the time, nor the energy, to explain the difference between statute law and precedent; that is to say the actual woring of laws and how they are subsequently interpreted by the courts. It is enough to say that the Federal Republic had quite a different interpretation of many existing laws than was the cae during the Weimar and Third Reich eras.
If it's so difficult to explain, maybe you can understand why most people just believe what they read in newspapers and peer reviewed law journals?
DeleteNot correct Simon, it may sound like it to English ears but definitively not to German ones. Applying English legal thinking to German law is bound to end in complete failure. For starters in German law anything not explicitly permitted is illegal. The English view is the opposite one.
ReplyDeleteThe law states that there is a duty to attend the Volksschule (6-10), Hauptschule (10-14) and Berufsschule (14-17), all of which being state schools, unless their education is provided elsewhere. This does not imply out of school, it means that children were permitted to attend a different kind of school (special schools for handicapped, blind, deaf etc, or one of the new elite schools founded by the NSDAP (nazi party)). All exceptions required approval of the education authority, which would not be given for home education. This “education otherwise” does not relate to home education at all.
So, essentially, Hitler did not explicitly ban home education or mention it specifically in the law. The reality was however that home education was definitively illegal and prosecuted under the Nazis. The 1938 school attendance law remained in force up to the 1970s, although any references to Nazi ideology were replaced with democratic values and non-compliance remained a criminal offence until 1974.
The duty to attend school has been on the German statute books since about 1619 (varying from state to state with Prussia being the strictest) but always allowed for alternative forms of education until the 1938 law.
So in summary Hitler (or rather his Education Minister) did not ban home education but made attendance of school teaching the correct national socialist values compulsory, therefore making anything but state school attendance illegal. The exception was only for special schools. If you make school compulsory then any other way becomes illegal, even if it is not spelled out explicitly.
Hitler’s government just continued with a centuries old tradition of training the children so that they would become obedient subjects and good soldiers. This has always been the explicit aim of (school) education in Germany up to this day, just what constituted a good and obedient citizen/subject changed though time.
' therefore making anything but state school attendance illegal.'
ReplyDeleteNot really so. Members of the Nazi party were having their children taught at home by tutors a long time after 1938.
Simon.
'So, essentially, Hitler did not explicitly ban home education or mention it specifically in the law. The reality was however that home education was definitively illegal and prosecuted under the Nazis.'
ReplyDeleteNot really true either. The tradition of wealthy families engaging governesses was an old one in Germany and did not stop in 1938. The children of Goebbels were taught partly at school and partly by a governess. I know that this was Austria, but think Sound of Music! Many high ranking officials maintained this mode of education throughout the war. It was thought in this country until the early 1960s, that the 'or otherwise' from the 1944 act was meant to refer to this practice. Read the accounts of Joy Baker's court appearances if you want to see how this mentality existed in this country until fifty years or so ago.
Simon.
Simon said,
Delete"It was thought in this country until the early 1960s, that the 'or otherwise' from the 1944 act was meant to refer to this practice [education by governess]."
You forget the R v West Riding of Yorkshire Justice, ex p Broadbent [1910] case, where Chief Justice Alverstone, when rejecting the argument of the local school board, commented that:
"it would be a very strong thing to wholly deprive the parent of the right to give efficient elementary instruction to his own child . . . "
Maybe home education as we know it was more common than you realise?
'And we should believe you in preference you peer reviewed, referenced journal articles because...?'
ReplyDeleteI am not asking anybody to believe me at all; I am encouraging people to find out for themselves rather than taking anybody's word for it, including mine.
Simon.
For most people this type of research means secondary sources such as peer reviewed law journals a described above. Few people have access to primary sources.
Delete'For most people this type of research means secondary sources such as peer reviewed law journals a described above. Few people have access to primary sources.'
ReplyDeleteA good source for those wanting to assure themselves that not all children went to school in Germany after 1938 is Kathe Hubner's memoir, Die Kinder des Reichministers. She was a governess and describes in detail teaching Nazi minister's children. The idea that all children in Germany went to school at this time is absurd.
Simon.
Do you have any evidence that this applied to anyone but the ruling minority? After all, these people's children did not need to be brainwashed by the regime. They are hardly typical and probably flouted many laws.
Delete'Do you have any evidence that this applied to anyone but the ruling minority? After all, these people's children did not need to be brainwashed by the regime. They are hardly typical and probably flouted many laws.'
ReplyDeleteI dare say that it was exactly the same as the situation in this country at that time. Rich people and the aristocracy arranged for their children to be taught out of school. So our own queen was educated at home like this, because she was part of the ruling minority. Any ordinary parent who tried it would probably have been taken to court! This was the same in both Britain and Germany. The laws relating to the practice of home education were the same for both countries. Just as it would be silly to claim that in 1944 Britain passed a law banning home education, so too would it be foolish to say that in 1938 Germany passed a law banning the practice.
Simon.
Simon.
'You forget the R v West Riding of Yorkshire Justice, ex p Broadbent [1910] case, where Chief Justice Alverstone, when rejecting the argument of the local school board, commented that:
ReplyDelete"it would be a very strong thing to wholly deprive the parent of the right to give efficient elementary instruction to his own child . . . "
Maybe home education as we know it was more common than you realise?'
It certainly happened from time to time, both here and in Germany. However, after the Second World War, as soon as parents tried to invoke the 1944 Education Act as legal justification for home education, they were taken to court. The same thing happened in Germany, where the federal Republic also took an anti-home education line.
Simon
Simon said,
Delete"However, after the Second World War, as soon as parents tried to invoke the 1944 Education Act as legal justification for home education, they were taken to court."
According to Monk the R v West Riding of Yorkshire case is the only recorded case in which the right to home educate has been challenged. Future cases contended only the content and form of the education provided. Maybe you could provide details to these other court cases? But I'd be surprised if they were missed by a Lecturer in Law at Birkbeck College.
'According to Monk the R v West Riding of Yorkshire case is the only recorded case in which the right to home educate has been challenged. Future cases contended only the content and form of the education provided. Maybe you could provide details to these other court cases?'
ReplyDeleteThis usually happens when people commenting here realise that I am right about the original point I am making. They they try to seize upon some minor point which is not germane to the question at hand and see if they are able to trip me up on that instead. This is a typical example of the tactic.
You might perhaps look at the case of Bevan v Shears, which was also heard before Lord Alverstone, the year after R v West Riding of Yorkshire. This was the case that set out the notion of an education at home not being compared to one at school. The first test case of the right to educate under the 1944 Education Act took place in 1952, in Norfolk. Joy Baker spent years trying to argue that she had a right to teach her own children at home and successive courts held that she did not. You could read her book, Children in Chancery for a full account of this case (Hutchinson, 1964).
Simon.
As the person who created that video I feel I have the right to defend it against my critics!
ReplyDeleteInteresting point about using Hitler, it can be tacky and incredibly boring and as the last five horror films I've seen have blamed Josef Mengele(the angel of death)it kind of destroys the storyline. Anyway the resemblance too the law passed by both the Swedish state and Hitler share many resemblances, as you have already pointed out here
" In 1938 the Nazis passed a law about education, the Gesetz über die Schulpflicht im Deutschen Reich. This made school compulsory, but just like the 1944 Education Act in this country, it contained an exemption clause for those who wished to have their children educated at home; (1) Zum Besuch der Volksschule sind alle Kinder verpflichtet, soweit nicht für ihre Erziehung und Unterweisung in anderer Weise ausreichend gesorgt ist. Roughly translated, this means that children had to attend school unless their education and training was otherwise provided out of school."
and I agree with you that HomeEd wasn't illegal in Nazi Germany as it isn't in Sweden now, its just impossible as it says in the VIDEO! Not once does the video mention it being banned by Hitler or the Swedish govt or it being illegal as you state here
"The ancient piece of nonsense is trotted out here, that Hitler banned home education and that Sweden has introduced a law based upon the Nazi one prohibiting home education."
I find it slightly judgemental and hypocritical that you are so quick to criticise what many other people have said including myself as treacle and and that you yourself have been ignorant to what has been stated in the video!
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"This usually happens when people commenting here realise that I am right about the original point I am making. They they try to seize upon some minor point which is not germane to the question at hand and see if they are able to trip me up on that instead. This is a typical example of the tactic."
Not at all. I'm exploring the extent and accuracy of your knowledge and comparing it to the views of experts in the field. If you are wrong about HE in the UK, something you should know well since you've written a book about it, why should we trust your information about Germany?
According to Monk all cases other than the R v West cases (and he specifically mentions both the Bevan v Shears and Baker v Earl cases) related to other aspects of home education, such as its content and the monitoring
powers of LEAs and not to the right to home educate as I've already mentioned. He provides full references for the case records to which presumably a Law Professor in a Law School would have full access.
Joy Baker was taken to court because she claimed that a suitable education was being provided by the activities and pursuits her children followed at home. The LA took her to court because she refused to provide a timetable or curriculum. In other words, they didn't recognise unschooling as a suitable education. They challenged the form of the home education, not the right to home educate as Monk clearly states.
'They they try to seize upon some minor point which is not germane to the question at hand and see if they are able to trip me up on that instead.'
DeleteThat's rich coming from someone whose written a blog article about a minor part of a video aimed at bringing attention to a significant action against laws that are adversely affecting many Swedish HE families. Can you really not see the irony here?
...someone *who has* written...
Delete'Not once does the video mention it being banned by Hitler or the Swedish govt or it being illegal as you state here '
ReplyDelete'you yourself have been ignorant to what has been stated in the video'
The video says:
'The Swedish government has introduced a law which was enforced and created by Hitler...That law restricted people' freddom and right to educate, that enslaved people into a one-dimensional system that was compulsory for all'
I certainly took it that this was a reference to the 1938 law passed in Germany. What was the 'one-dimensional system that was compulsory for all' if not schools? Since the people before the clip of Hitler had been discussing home education, it seems reasonable to assume that the footage of Hitler was somehow connected with home education. By claiming that the 'one-dimensional system of education was compulsory for all', it was clear that the assertion was being made that home education was not permitted in Nazi Germany. Since we are also told that Sweden is introducing a similar law, the conclusion is inescapable.
Simon.
'
' why should we trust your information about Germany?'
ReplyDeleteAs I said earlier, I am not asking anybody to trust me or take my word for anything. I am inviting people to look into the matter and make their own minds up.
Simon.
'Not at all. I'm exploring the extent and accuracy of your knowledge and comparing it to the views of experts in the field. If you are wrong about HE in the UK, something you should know well since you've written a book about it, why should we trust your information about Germany?'
ReplyDeleteThis is of course a fair point. What I originally said above was, 'However, after the Second World War, as soon as parents tried to invoke the 1944 Education Act as legal justification for home education, they were taken to court'. This is what actually happened; Joy Baker claimed to the Norfolk LEA that she had a right under the 1944 Education Act to teach her own children and she was taken to court. it is impossible to speculate what would have been the attitude of the LEA had she produced lesson plans and so on; the fact is that they did not believe that the 1944 act intended to give parents the right to educate their own children. This was certainly not the ground they gave in court, but was clear from the remarks they made to those involved in the case. One LEA man said, 'Parliament never envisaged a Mrs Baker!' This indicates that he believed that the law did not give parents the right to home educate. Have you actually read Children in Chancery? In order to support the idea that the LEA were taking action only because the form of the education was deficient, you would need to tell us about parents who were home educating at that time and whose right to home educate had been explicitly acknowledged by their local authority.
Simon.
video creator
ReplyDeleteyou have most certainly jumped to the wrong conclusion as you have clearly missed the point of the video.... and as i will say again the video does not state that home education was banned or illegal under Hitler and it is not under the new Swedish law it is however Impossible and there are at least 15 families that have fled Sweden in the last year......Semantics aside this is what we are trying to raise awareness about, the fact that people are having to leave the country they live in to be able to educate their children in the way they see best!
Well done, great video! I'll spread the link elsewhere.
Deletethank you and please do!
DeleteSimon wrote,
ReplyDelete"This is what actually happened; Joy Baker claimed to the Norfolk LEA that she had a right under the 1944 Education Act to teach her own children and she was taken to court. it is impossible to speculate what would have been the attitude of the LEA had she produced lesson plans and so on;"
Not at all. First the LEA asked for information about the child's home education. They asked for the timetable and schemes of work her son would follow. It was only when she refused to provide information about her home education provision that an SAO was issued (and ignored).
Simon wrote,
"One LEA man said, 'Parliament never envisaged a Mrs Baker!' This indicates that he believed that the law did not give parents the right to home educate."
Or that he believed the law did not give parents the right to refuse to provide information about timetables and schemes of work to LEAs or that an education provided through the activities and pursuits her children followed at home, so unlike the education provided in their schools, could be considered suitable.
Simon wrote,
"In order to support the idea that the LEA were taking action only because the form of the education was deficient, you would need to tell us about parents who were home educating at that time and whose right to home educate had been explicitly acknowledged by their local authority."
Not really. If were just about the right to HE they wouldn't have asked for timetables and schemes of work before issuing the SAO.
Not the same anonymous but here's a review of Children in Chancery.
Deletehttp://archive.tribunemagazine.co.uk/article/20th-march-1964/12/mrs-bakers-family
Joy Baker claimed the requirements of the act "were met by the activities and pursuits which her children followed at home; how the local education authorities would not accept this—principally because she would furnish no timetable or curriculum to corroborate it"
§ 1. Allgemeine Schulpflicht. Im Deutschen Reich besteht allgemeine Schulpflicht. Sie sichert die Erziehung und Unterweisung der deutschen Jugend im Geiste des Nationalsozialismus. Ihr sind alle Kinder und Jugendlichen deutscher Staatsangehörigkeit unterworfen, die im Inlande ihren Wohnsitz oder gewöhnlichen Aufenthalt haben.
ReplyDelete(2) Die Schulpflicht ist durch Besuch einer reichsdeutschen Schule zu erfüllen. Über Ausnahmen entscheidet die Schulaufsichtsbehörde.
§ 1 Compulsory school attendance. In the German Empire, Education shall be compulsory. It secures the education and training of German youth in the spirit of National Socialism. Subjected to this are all children and young people of German citizenship, who live within the state's boundaries.
(2) Compulsory education is met by visiting a empire (German) school. Exceptions are decided by the school board.
Of course leading Nazi's would be exempt.
"Of course leading Nazi's would be exempt."
DeleteTrue. They would probably been shot if they had refused!
What would be shot had they refused home education? I have not heard of any Nazi being shot for keeping their kids out of school, and some did keep their kids out of school. Unless a Nazi opposed Hitler or tried to carve a bigger piece for himself in the power struggle such as Roehm, or later the Stauffenberg uprisers, not many got shot, certainly not for having their children educated by a governess at home.
DeleteNo. The official would have been shot, or maybe imprisoned which often amounted to the same result, if they had refused permission to a Nazi minister to HE.
DeleteAs I recall there were quite a number of Home edders who were in favour of the BNP when the party showed their support for home education. They stated on several forums that they were more than happy to vote BNP and others should too.
ReplyDeleteAt meetings, I've heard a number of parents say that they took their children out of school because of 'the number of pakis'.
And....The rabidly racist Stormfront website has several British home educating members that contribute to some very nasty debates.
Really? I didn't see that. What I saw was a few people mentioning how shocked they were that the BNP even HAD a policy on HE and being rather embarrassed about the party's support of it. I think this might be the start of a scurrilous campaign of misinformation.
ReplyDeleteAlso, for many years, I HE'd in a town with a large Pakistani population and I never, not even once, heard a member of our large HE group mention this as a factor.
Old Mum
well said!!
DeleteThis is my recollection to, Old Mum. I'm sure there must be racists within HE, I'd be surprised if there were not since they seem quite widespread even though they are a minority (for instance, I believe the membership list included occupations such as vicars, teachers, police officers, government employees, etc when it was leaked a few years ago). Certainly the general impression I gained from both internet lists and local groups at the time was disgust and embarrassment.
DeleteReally old Mum...you should know better.
DeleteThe only disinformation here is from the likes of you.
I've regularly encountered not only racism in HE but also homophobia and discrimination against children with learning disabilities.
Still on the subject of the video, which was the original subject of the post, the maker tells us that, ' i will say again the video does not state that home education was banned or illegal under Hitler and it is not under the new Swedish law'
ReplyDeleteI am now very confused. The voiceover accompanying footage of Hitler tells us that the Swedish government has brought in a law created by Hitler which restricts people's freedom to educate and enslaves them in a compulsory, one-dimensional system for all. The maker of the film assures us that this is not a reference to compulsory schooling and the banning of home education. That being so, perhaps he could tell us what the 'compulsory, one-dimensional system' which enslaves people is? Genuinely puzzled about this.
It seems clear to me. Technically HE of not banned in Sweden since the law states that it is allowed in special circumstances. So technically school is not compulsory. But since permission is required to HE and very unlikely to be given, HE is effectively banned. Hopefully some one with more knowledge in this area (not you, Simon) will correct me if my interpretation is wrong.
DeleteIf we take this as an accurate summary of the situation for now, what are your views on the issue, Simon? Do you support the protest movement, our are you against it for some reason.
'It seems clear to me'
ReplyDeleteBut not, alas, to me.
'enslave people in a one-dimensional system that is compulsory for all'
'technically school is not compulsory'
Am I alone in seeing a contradiction between these two statements, presumably both made by the same person?
' Do you support the protest movement, our are you against it for some reason.'
I am a great supporter of home education and have been for forty years or so. I educated my own daughter at home. My objection was to the use of Hitler's image, bringing the Nazis into the thing seemed to me to be awful.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Am I alone in seeing a contradiction between these two statements, presumably both made by the same person?"
No, not written by the same person, I wrote the second quote. Can you not see that HE can technically be legal, but since permission is required it could be impossible in practice? If permission to HE is never granted, the result would effectively be a 'one-dimensional system that is compulsory for all' even though HE is still technically legal.
"I am a great supporter of home education and have been for forty years or so. I educated my own daughter at home. My objection was to the use of Hitler's image, bringing the Nazis into the thing seemed to me to be awful."
So you are in agreement with the aims of the video but decided to nit pick the presentation? After reading the translated Nazi text and viewing the Swedish law in the video, it certainly sounds as though there are valid comparisons between the two. Exceptions to school attendance can be made in both but are very unlikely for the likes of you and me. And the Swedish government's actions are causing people to leave their homes to avoid persecution. Possibly using the Hitler tape is a little over dramatic but I think a little artistic licence is to be expected in film making. But focussing on that and ignoring the issue seems to be missing the point.
'So you are in agreement with the aims of the video but decided to nit pick the presentation?'
ReplyDeleteYou may think that objecting to the use of Hitler in this context is nit-picking; I have quite another view. The Nazis and the Holocaust are such a dreadful historical event, that to trivialise it by using them to promote some hobby or favoured cause is not acceptable. This is a matter of personal opinion. I also thought it monumentally tasteless to show Graham Badman reading Mein Kampf. I write from the perspective of an ardent Zionist who spent years in Israel. I am the first to concede that this might give me a biassed view on the matter!
However poor in taste it is often used when people try to raise awareness of the issues surrounding the restriction of freedoms by the state. Especially if it results in people needing to leave their homeland to avoid persecution. I'm sure you could fill you blog with examples, most of which have nothing to do with HE.
ReplyDeleteI've spoken to Jews who have no problem with it's use in connection with this type of issue and I'm sure there are others who would speak out against it. Obviously we are all entitled to our views. It's just a shame that your first action on viewing this video was not related to sympathy for the families affected by this new law that effectively bans HE or their attempts to bring it to people's attention, but to post negatively to email lists and your blog about a tiny section of the video that you disagreed with.
Correction:
Delete...with *its* use...
'this new law that effectively bans HE or their attempts to bring it to people's attention'
ReplyDeleteIt is of course worth asking if those who so enthusiastically jump on this particular bandwagon are quite sure of the facts. For instance are there any families home educating in Sweden with permission? Were those who left the country refused permission to home educate because they failed to provide what the authorities would view as a good education? In other words, what grounds do we have, apart from the assertions of some disgruntled home educators, that home education really is effectively banned in Sweden? I would need a little more information than that already provided to support this campaign and the fact that the film relied upon footage of Hitler did not endear the makers to me , nor did it provide me with any facts.
"The Swedish Liberal Party pushed a new 1,500-page schooling law through last month one paragraph of which will make home schooling as an expression of religion or philosophy effectively impossible for Swedish families, other than in “exceptional circumstances” such as health issues or distance from a public school. The law also severely restricts religious practice in Sweden’s “confessional” schools.
DeleteSweden’s officials defend the home-school ban, which takes effect next July, saying home schooling is unnecessary since the state provides a “comprehensive and objective” education...
Anna Neuman, press secretary for Education Minister Jan Bjorklund, said home schooling is unnecessary in her country.
“Since all teaching in Swedish schools is both comprehensive and objective, there is no need for home schooling with reference to religious or philosophical reasons, and this is why this is not an option in the new Education Act,” she said."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/18/home-school-ban-in-sweden-forces-families-to-mull-/
' one paragraph of which will make home schooling as an expression of religion or philosophy effectively impossible for Swedish families'
ReplyDeleteYes, I am aware of this. I was wondering about whether persmission has been granted for educational reasons; that is to say for the benfit of the child. I have contacted the Swedish Education Ministry and will report back. Unless that is, anybody here can tell us conclusively whether it is true that the law now effectively bans home education in Sweden.
"Yes, I am aware of this. I was wondering about whether persmission has been granted for educational reasons; that is to say for the benfit of the child."
ReplyDeleteSo does this mean that you approve the refusal of permission to home educate for religious and philosophical reasons? Which presumably includes parent's who want to home educate for these reasons for the benefit of the child.
Either way, reading the page on the philosophy of education on Wikipedia, I think 'philosophy' could easily include the parent's belief that children are best educated via one to one instruction from a parent at home.
"The philosophy of education may be either the philosophy of the process of education or the philosophy of the discipline of education. That is, it may be part of the discipline in the sense of being concerned with the aims, forms, methods, or results of the process of educating or being educated; or it may be metadisciplinary in the sense of being concerned with the concepts, aims, and methods of the discipline."
'I was wondering about whether permission has been granted for educational reasons; that is to say for the benefit of the child."
ReplyDeleteSo does this mean that you approve the refusal of permission to home educate for religious and philosophical reasons?'
Why no, Anonymous, it means that I was wondering about whether permission has been granted for educational reasons; that is to say for the benefit of the child. I must apologise for the ambiguity.
So are you suggesting that home educate for religious and philosophical reasons isn't for the benefit of the child?
DeleteAhh....educating anyone for religious and philosophical purposes is indoctrination. How can indoctrination be of benefit to a child?
Delete“[Religious schools] can’t make any children to pray or confess to the God, but they will still be allowed [to exist],” Education Ministry press secretary Anna Neuman told The New American in a telephone interview. Essentially, there will no longer be any difference between “private” schools and government schools, she explained. And there will be no other option.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to abolishing any remaining distinctions among schools, the new education act also prohibits home schooling for religious or philosophical reasons. Home education can be allowed only in “exceptional circumstances” like extreme bullying, Neuman explained. Lawyers have said the new condition basically means never. [...]
“It’s a fear that [home schooling] doesn’t work appropriate[ly],” press secretary Neuman explained, though she admitted there was no report or evidence to back up the fear."
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/07/03/adventures-in-euphemism-nordic-nations-define-basic-human-rights/
'So are you suggesting that home educate for religious and philosophical reasons isn't for the benefit of the child?'
ReplyDeleteI can see that I am still not making myself clear. I was wondering about whether permission has been granted for educational reasons; that is to say for the benefit of the child. This does not of course mean that only home education for educational reasons is beneficial to a child.
Can you be more specific about what you mean by 'educational reasons'? Are you thinking in terms of HE for gifted children, for instance?
DeleteSince I'm sure many people who home educate for religious reasons think that those religious reasons are directly beneficial to their child's education - they are home education for educational reasons because of their religion. And many people who home educate for philosophical reasons do so only because they believe that it will benefit their child educationally and fear that school will harm their child's education. Again they are home educating for educational reasons.
Or do you think that people who home educate for religious and philosophical reasons are doing so for reasons other than the educational benefit of their children? That their beliefs and their child's educational benefit are entirely separate and can never coincide or follow directly from each other? I'm really not asking to annoy you (though it seems to be having that effect, sorry!), I'm genuinely interested in how you see educational reasons as so different from religious and philosophical reasons and how you distinguish them from each other.
Delete'I'm really not asking to annoy you (though it seems to be having that effect, sorry!),'
ReplyDeleteI'm not at all annoyed; merely puzzled. People educate their children at home for various reasons. Some do so because their children have been bullied at school, some because their child has a special educational need for which the school is unable to cater and others because they are members of a particular religion and wish their children to be raised separately from others, in a certain lifestyle.Some parents follow a particular educational philosophy; perhaps they feel that child-led education is better than an adult imposing a curriculum.
There are also parents who feel that from purely educational perspective, they are able to give their child a better standard of education than that on offer at the local school. This is what I meant by home education for educational reasons. Of course, there is some overlap with the other motives for home education, but there is one main difference. Those who take a child out of school because he is being bullied or because the school does not keep kosher, or cannot cope with a child's disability, are all in a sense acting under duress. They feel that they have to take this step. Those who are actuated by purely educational considerations though, often undertake the education of their child purely because they wish to; not because they have been put in a position where they have no choice.
"They feel that they have to take this step. Those who are actuated by purely educational considerations though, often undertake the education of their child purely because they wish to; not because they have been put in a position where they have no choice."
ReplyDeleteBut even in cases of duress educational reasons are involved, and often they are the primary impetus to HE even though the initial reasons for considering HE are different to freely chosen HE. A bullied child or a child with unmet SEN will not be educated well. The parent therefore feels they are able to give their child a better standard of education than that on offer at the local school, just like the parent who freely chose to HE without these additional reasons. You say that motives may overlap, but these other motives are often the reason the parent feels they can offer a better education than the school, so they are still home educating educational benefit. I'm not sure why anyone would differentiate between the two reasons since both ultimately result in a better education for the child. The Swedish minister has actually said that severe bullying is an example of a special case in which HE might be allowed.
"Some parents follow a particular educational philosophy; perhaps they feel that child-led education is better than an adult imposing a curriculum."
Just as the parent you describe, who believes they can offer their child a better education than schools. How do you distinguish between these philosophical parents and the parent you describe who home educations for educational reasons alone? They both feel they are home educating because they can offer their child a better education than schools and have positive motivations for their choice rather than negative. How do you tell them apart?
In fact, the improvement in education provision for an individual child could potentially be far greater when HE is undertaken for initially negative reasons. Compare the education a child with unmet SEN or a bullied child (or both) might receive in school, to the school education received by an un-bullied, non-SEN child whose parents are very involved and interested in their child's education and who might otherwise have chosen to HE if personal circumstances allowed. I suspect the difference in education quality between school and home would be far less for the last child.
Delete'How do you distinguish between these philosophical parents and the parent you describe who home educations for educational reasons alone?'
ReplyDelete'In fact, the improvement in education provision for an individual child could potentially be far greater when HE is undertaken for initially negative reasons.'
All of which may well be true. I must however remind readers that the Swedish government did not consult me when they drew up this legislation. I am aware that home education for religious and philosophical reasons is forbidden in Sweden and merely wondered whether this was also the case with home education undertake for purely educational reasons. I am expressing no view about the wisdom or ethics of the Swedish law, but am inviting anybody who does actually know how it works in practice to provide information. The impression I have so far is that nobody commenting here knows any more about the case than they have been able to discover on the internet.
My impression gained from the interviews, is that they would view the desire to HE on the part of the parent for educational reasons as you describe above as a philosophical reason since they have clearly stated that they doubt the efficiency of HE. But it will be interesting to hear their response and I hope you will share it here, along with the text of your original enquiry.
Delete"I am aware that home education for religious and philosophical reasons is forbidden in Sweden and merely wondered whether this was also the case with home education undertake for purely educational reasons."
DeleteI think the point of the questions was to establish how you, or anyone else (including Swedish officials), can distinguish home education for 'educational' reasons from home education for 'philosophical' reasons. I you cannot describe the difference, how can you expect Swedish officials, with their limited knowledge of HE, to answer your query accurately? Can I ask, how have you actually phrased the question?
'Can I ask, how have you actually phrased the question?'
ReplyDeleteI have been in touch with both the Swedish National Agency for Education and Jonas Himmelstrand, the President of ROHUS. In each case, I asked them whether the new law had meant that nobody was being given permission to home educate. The answers indicate that many people who were formerly home educating, no longer have permission to do so; but that home education is still taking place with the permission of various municipalities. I shall post more about this soon.
So are you saying that it's a bit of a postcode lottery and some municipalities interpret 'special cases' more generously than others?
DeleteGenerally you make a home visit...and if there's a big picture on the wall of The Rev Moon or L.Ron Hubbard, there's a problem...
ReplyDeleteif the child is reading 'Dianetics' instead of 'Where the wild things are'...
there's a problem.
If the parents tell the official...
'f*ck off infidel.'
There's a problem.
It's called indoctrination, I wonder what will happen when a sleeper call from Al Qaeda is found to be HEing.
Perhaps Swedish officials already know of the American white power extremists from Stormfront that are homeschooling and are tooled up with automatic weaponry.
Maybe the Germans are concerned that Neo Nazis would jump at the opportunity to recreate the home ed version of Hitlerjugend.
Oh dear. Gossip, rumour, scare-mongering, conspiracy theories. What does that remind us of?
DeleteCalm down dear. You might do yourself a mischief.
Neil Taylor and MF-W.
DeleteBeen trying to get them to calm down for years..but they're so happy in their little quest for HE dominance.
DeleteI wonder if Neil Taylor educated his kids to believe in those anti semitic conspiracy theories that he believes are true.
ReplyDeleteI know for a fact that he's not anti-Semitic so I'd be interested to hear which particular conspiracy theory you think is anti-Semitic. I've heard a few and none appear overtly anti-Semitic. You appear to be suggesting a conspiracy theory hidden within a conspiracy theory, a matryoshka of conspiracy theories. You appear to be taking conspiracy theories to a whole new level.
Delete'I know for a fact he's not anti semitic'
DeleteStrange then that Neil Taylor often writes huge missives that go into great detail about the NWO. There was a link on this blog recently....and there he was, he'd written a good few hundred words about the NWO and Rockerfeller.
That particular conspiracy is Judeo-Masonic, that Freemasonry is plotting to rule the world on behalf of the Jews because the Jews believe they are the chosen of God.
The Protocols of The Elders of Zion are the root of the NWO theory, they strip away the layers of monarchy, politics, war and power to place blame for all the wrongs of the world on the Jews.
The Protocols are recognised as feeding 20th century anti masonic hysteria, and more importantly underpinning antisemitism.
I'm sure that if you look hard enough you'll find a picture of the cover from 'The Jewish Peril'.
Of course, I haven't mentioned Neil Taylor's fascination with Rockerfeller and the Round Table secret society or his hints at gradualism.
The NWO conspiracy is as you say a matryoshka of conspiracies.
That's why it's quite odd that Neil Taylor should be using them so often in relation to HE, I've heard of them surfacing in weird religious sects rather regularly. They're constantly being used as propaganda in White Power/race hate organisations.
Since there are so many NWO conspiracy theories, many of which do not implicate Jews, you will need to do better than this. You need to provide a link in which Neil blames the Jews. And mentioning one person who happens to be Jewish doesn't count. I know some Christians that are criminals and have discussed them with other people. This doesn't make me anti-Christian. Apparently anti-Semitism is quite often used to discredit legitimate criticism of globalization and free trade economic policies. How do I know this is not your intention?
DeleteYour argument stinks of denialism, and runs to exactly the same pattern as the denialism of the 9/11 truther movement. The 'globalization' bit comes from a related rather virulent conspiracy theory that involves Jews and 9/11.
DeleteQuite evident that it's the same argument used by online activists from white power forums.
So here's a contribution to the Stormfront website, they're all white supremacists.
DeleteThis message is from someone called Taysider on 1/27/2012, the discussion is 'what is happening in our schools'.
Rebel Robbie says:
'that's a good question, basically they all keep telling us that his mother needs to move and take him from this terrible place'
Taysider replies: 'personally, I think this is a great case for home schooling with all it's benefits. see-'
(links to)
HE-UK
EO
Educating your child at home(directgov)
Taysider resumes with:
'If you like the idea perhaps you could discuss it with the lads mum, stressing that he would be happy and safe in his(or your)home environment...'
Taysider has a quote by Adolf Hitler at the foot of his message:
'what we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our people, the sustenance of our children, and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independance of our fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.'
Adolf Hitler.
'So are you saying that it's a bit of a postcode lottery and some municipalities interpret 'special cases' more generously than others?'
ReplyDeleteNo, I didn't say that. I said that in some municipalities there are people who have gained the necessary exemption and in others there are not.
So is the law being applied consistently by the different municipalities? This is still not clear from your answer.
Delete'So is the law being applied consistently by the different municipalities? This is still not clear from your answer'
ReplyDeleteI have not the least idea! I didn't ask this question, only whether people were still being granted permission to home educate under the new law.
Maybe you should also be asking if people are being refused permission to home educate under the new law, and if so, how many and why? These seem the most relevant questions since the law states that permission will be given in special cases so it seems obvious that some will obtain permission. It would be more useful to know that 100 had been refused permission whilst only 5 had been given permission, rather than just being told that 5 had been given permission, for example.
Delete'Maybe you should also be asking if people are being refused permission to home educate under the new law, and if so, how many and why?'
ReplyDeleteIf you find this out, be sure to let us know.
I'm not interested in such details, I'm just suggesting that your question is pointless if you want to find out how the law is being applied in practice. I disagree with the requirement to ask permission so the details of how it is applied are irrelevant to me.
DeleteDiscovering that some people are given permission to HE doesn't mean that the majority are not effectively banned from HE. Just as the fact that a few Nazis were given permission to HE doesn't mean that the majority of Germans were effectively banned from HE.
'I'm not interested in such details'
ReplyDeleteThat's called a 'cop out'.
"That's called a 'cop out'"
DeleteWhy? If I'm against the legal requirement for home educators to ask the state for permission to HE, why would I be interested in the details of who is and isn't granted permission? Since I'm against the requirement in principle, the details of how it works are irrelevant *to me*, though obviously not to Simon. Not sure why you think I should feel responsible for discovering such details. Puzzled.
I'd like to see the legal requirement.
ReplyDeleteThere are a great many home educators who really shouldn't be allowed to indoctrinate their offspring in the way that they do. In the next few years, home educating parents are going to be responsible for a number of really screwed up individuals. Some of the prejudices and hang ups that the parents hold are already transferred to their children. Quite often the home ed parent is affected by complicated mental impairment or a severe lacking in social or educational skills.
I've met several parents who treat their children as their carers, I know of one who is prescribed poweful painkillers for some disability or other, and regularly spends days in bed. I know of another home educating single mother where Schizophrenia runs in the family and mother is the carer for two adults...
I'm sorry but I feel that parents regularly fail to realise their commitment to their children when they undertake the responsibility to educate.
"I'd like to see the legal requirement."
ReplyDeleteIf you read the messages above you will find a translation of the German law in which it states that exceptions to the compulsory schooling law are granted by the school board.
I hope you fulfilled your civic duties and reported any families not providing a suitable education to the LA. Society cannot rely on the state to detect all problems, it's the responsibility of all of us to care for others and take appropriate action when necessary, however difficult it can seem at the time.
Good day! I simply want to offer you a huge
ReplyDeletethumbs up for your excellent information you've got here on this post. I am coming back to your web site for more soon.
Here is my web page: ebuybelize.com
Awesome article.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to surf to my homepage :: worldwidemedinsurance.com
What's up i am kavin, its my first occasion to commenting anywhere, when i read this post i thought i could also create comment due to this good piece of writing.
ReplyDeletemy blog post - www.contactnewfriends.com