Deutschland über Eltern: The case of home-schooling in Germany

As various media outlets have reported, a German family has been granted political asylum in the United States. (HT: Ed West; for English-language coverage see here, here and here; for German coverage of the family's application before the court's decision see here and here and for coverage in German after US court had granted the family asylum see here, here, and here.) Now of course the decision is subject to a possible appeal by the US Government but unless or until that happens the Romeike family are legitimate asylum seekers in the United States, having fled state persecution in Germany. What on earth is a US court in 2010 doing granting Germans political asylum for persecution by German authorities? Isn't this the stuff of objectionable regimes such as Nazi Germany (1933-1945) or modern day North Korea or Zimbabwe and not modern liberal democracies? Surely Germany in 2010 doesn't persecute a subset of its citizens on the basis of their religious, philosophical or political beliefs (or even worse their race), I hear you ask. What's all the fuss about?

Well, Herr and Frau Romeike want to home school their children. And home-schooling happens to be illegal in Germany. In the United States, however, it is not only legal but also quite popular (in most countries only a handful of children are home schooled but one study puts the number of children home schooled in 2005-6 in the United States at between 1.9 million and 2.4 million). Many (but certainly not all) of the people who home school (or wish to home school) their children do so for "religious" reasons. Dissatisfied with the idea of their children being educated in a (to their mind) godless and malignant state education system, some Christian parents (typically evangelical Protestant Christians) wish to educate their children outside of the state sector. Many do so by sending their children to private schools more in line with the parents' own values but a minority choose to educate their children themselves at home. As devout evangelical Christians dissatisfied with the German state education system the Romeikes fall into this category. In most Western countries, home-schooling is legal. Germany, however, is an exception among western nations, and an interesting one at that. Obviously Germany has the scar of the abhorrent Nazi totalitarian regime and the persecution that took place thereunder. One might be forgiven for thinking that in light of the fact that compulsory school education was used as a means of indoctrinating Germans in Nazi ideology that modern post-war Germany would be alert to the reality that compulsory school attendance can be used as a means of inculcating children in a particular ideology and therefore eschew "totalitarianism" in matters educational, instead allowing parents the freedom of choice as to how they educate their children, so long as they do it (and do it well). And unlike many other European countries, Germany also has a significant indigenous tradition of evangelical Protestant Christianity. It's not as if families with a world view like that of the Romeikes are something unusual -- "off the chart" one might say -- in Germany (as they might be in a traditionally Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox country). Yes, modern Germany is a largely secular country and institutional Christianity is dominated by the two large churches -- the largely liberal state Lutheran-Reformed Church and the Roman Catholic Church. But there has long been a significant minority of "evangelicals" (in the modern English sense of that word) in Germany both in the state Lutheran-Reformed church as well as in a number of Protestant free churches. Given the history of Christianity in Germany you would not expect Germans to think "what? there are people in Germany who believe that?" but rather "yes, that is a viewpoint that has a significant historical pedigree in our society and these people are generally good citizens". I'm certainly not saying that evangelical Protestants are the only group who wish to home school their children. Far from it. What I am saying is that modern day recognition of such "rights" doesn't simply come into existence ex nihlio but often out of the history and underlying ethos of a society and one might expect countries with a significant evangelical Protestant history to have more sympathy for the position of families such as the Romeikes than countries with no such history and where the rest of society has more trouble understanding their position.

Now as I mentioned, home-schooling in Germany is (with a very few limited exceptions) illegal. While most western nations have compulsory education (leaving parents the option of sending their children to school or educating them at home) Germany has compulsory school attendance (rendering home-schooling illegal). Furthermore, parents in Germany who refuse to send their children to a state school or a state-approved private school (and until recently private schools in Germany were quite a rare phenomenon and in comparison to the English-speaking world still are) are subject to criminal prosecution which if found guilty means being fined and, if the parents refuse to repent of their ways, jailed. In extreme cases the state can even remove children from the care of their parents, taking them into the care of the state (although in the case of the Romeikes it didn't come to that; what we had were police turning up in the morning and forcibly taking the children from their home and bringing them to school). The current ban on home-schooling in Germany has an interesting pedigree. Universal compulsory school attendance was first introduced in Prussia in the 18th Century (at a guess I suppose it was designed as an efficient means of bringing education for the first time to the masses although I do not claim to be an expert on this aspect of German history) while the current post-WW2 German ban on home-schooling can trace a direct link to a pre-WW2 law from the time of the Third Reich. The 1938 Act in fact stated an overtly ideological and totalitarian justification for universal compulsory school attendance:

§ 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.

(2) Die Schulpflicht ist durch Besuch einer reichsdeutschen Schule zu erfüllen. Über Ausnahmen entscheidet die Schulaufsichtsbehörde.

which translates into English as (and the translation is mine):

§ 1. Universal Compulsory School Attendance. In the German Reich there shall be universal compulsory school attendance. This ensures that German youth will be raised and instructed in the spirit of National Socialism. All children and youth of German nationality whose domicile or usual place of abode is in Germany shall be subject to compulsory school attendance.

(2) The duty to attend school is to be discharged by attending a school of the German Reich [i.e. a state school]. The school supervisory board shall have the power to to make exceptions.

In other words, before the war the reason given for compulsory school attendance in Germany was to enable the Nazi totalitarian state to control education and indoctrinate children in the subtleties of Nazi ideology. Of course in the aftermath of World War II the overtly Nazi rationale for compulsory school attendance in Germany was quietly dropped, but the substantive provisions of the 1938 law remained in force. Over the years the law has gradually been amended in other regards but to this day school attendance is, with very limited exceptions (such as disabled children whose disability prevents them from travelling to school) compulsory in Germany and home-schooling is illegal. While the Nazis made school attendance in Germany compulsory in order to "ensure[] that German youth will be raised and instructed in the spirit of National Socialism", and while post-Nazi Germany may have dropped the abhorrent Nazi ideology and the rationale for compulsory school attendance of indoctrinating youth in this abhorrent ideology, the compulsion to attend a state school (or a state approved private school) remained. What possible justification could the modern German state have for such a ban? And does this violate the rights of parents such as Herr and Frau Romeike to educate their children in accordance with their own values and wishes?

Well, first of all it should be pointed out that some German states (although not all of Germany as far as I can tell) had a history of compulsory school attendance (as opposed to compulsory education) before the 1938 law so I am not meaning to suggest that the Nazis are entirely responsible for this practice. Moreover, Article 7 of the current German Constitution (Grundgesetz) guarantees (1) that (except in special non-confessional schools) religious education shall be part of the ordinary curriculum in state schools, (2) that parents have the right to decide whether or not their children attend these religious education classes and (3) that (subject to some important qualifications) there is a right to found private schools, including schools with a particular religious or philosophical orientation. So there is still some level of official recognition that parents have rights in regard to their childrens' education. The German state would no doubt argue that because of this it is respecting the "rights" of families in relation to the education of children. On this view yes, parents have a right to their religious beliefs and they have a right to see that their children are educated in accordance therewith. But (and this is an important but) this does not amount to parents educating their children themselves. The state has an interest in educating children and compelling school attendance. So there is a "balancing" of interests here with the result that parents can either send their children to the local state school where they will receive religious education as part of the curriculum or they can send their children to a state-approved private school of the parents' choosing. Reasonable? Well there's the usual modern platitude to the "balancing" of individual and state interests and most people in modern Germany as well as in several other liberal democracies would consider this approach an eminently sensible "compromise" and stop at that.

On closer inspection, however, this episode is not really about religion at all but about the role of the state vis-à-vis parents in the education of children. This is not really a question of a person being targeted because of his religious beliefs. It is much more general than that. It is about who has the ultimate say in how children are educated: parents or the state? It really is that stark a choice. "Religion" was the "trigger" in this case and tends to be in most cases for the simple reason that it is by and large "religious" people (typically conservative evangelical Christians) who want to "opt out" of the state system and educate their children at home. But if German atheists or agnostics wanted to educate their children at home (not that any to my knowledge do) then presumably they would run into similar difficulties as these (and many other) German Christians.

Germany (and I have lived there) simply does not believe in the fundamental right and responsibility of parents to educate their children. Most Germans -- and probably most Europeans -- don't think like that. For most Germans education is the task of the state and not of parents and, moreover, the state has a legitimate interest in forcing parents to send their children to state or state-approved schools (even if the parents strongly object to what is being taught in those schools). Talk to a German about this issue and the main argument for forcing children to attend government-approved schools is a desire to prevent the emergence of what they (not I) term religiously or philosophically (weltanschaulich) motivated "parallel societies" (Parallelgesellschaften). This too is essentially the rationale given by the German courts when German home-schoolers have gone (or been dragged) before the courts in that country (see for example here [especially paragraphs 7-9] where the German Federal Constitutional Court gives exactly this justification).

What was a superficially plausible justification (the need to balance the state's interest with parents' wishes) is on closer examination nothing of the sort. Germany has rejected the overt totalitarianism of the Nazi era and replaced it with a kind of "soft totalitarianism" where the state still controls the ideology of the education of children. Parents educating their children in accordance with their own religious and philosophical (weltanschaulich) views is a direct challenge to the authority to state-approved ideologies. That is what the "parallel societies" argument boils down to. Parents cannot be trusted with the education of their children lest they be taught something other than state-approved ideology; if not the Vaterland itself then certainly the Vaterland's liberal progressive establishment knows best. One Thomas Vitzhum opined in the German newspaper die Welt in an opinion piece headed "Die Romeikes schaden ihren eigenen Kindern" ("The Romeikes are harming their own children"):

For a long time it was difficult for parents in Germany to have their children educated differently from that which was prescribed in the state syllabuses ... But over the years much has changed. The private schools are flourishing, increasing in number and often based on a particular religion or the pursuit of other ideals. Government grants and official exemptions make it possible even for poorer people to attend these schools. Why didn't the Romeikes spare their children a lot of trouble and look for a school here in Germany? The suspicion remains that they weren't just thinking of what an ideal school can be but rather of what the ideal society must be. Even in Tennessee they'll need more sangfroid. [Translation mine; click here for the original German.]

I find this sentiment highly objectionable. It elevates "school" over "education" and society over parents. Simply put Vitzhum thinks the state -- and he of course -- knows better than Herr and Frau Romeike about what is in the interests of their children. The interest of society trumps the right of parents. To Vitzhum's mind the Romeikes have put their children through an ordeal by needlessly shifting continents and subjecting them to home education when the benevolent Vaterland deigns to allow a few educational wackos visionaries and religious nutcases minorities their own "schools" (strictly supervised by the Vaterland's thought police of course). By all means feel free to dissent on what the ideal school might look like, but do not ever suggest that education might ideally be carried out in a context other than that of a state-approved school. For Vitzhum and the German state the idea of home-schooling is simply too subversive to countenance.

Compare this, however, with the reported remarks of Judge Burman, the American judge who granted them asylum:

We can't expect every country to follow our [i.e. the US] constitution. The world might be a better place if it did. However, the rights being violated here are basic human rights that no country has a right to violate.

Judge Burman, moreover, was critical of the German authorities' justification for the ban on home-schooling in its desire to stamp out "parallel societies", calling this "odd" and "silly", concluding that while Germany is a democratic country and an ally, its particular policy of persecuting home-schoolers is "repellent to everything we believe as Americans".

While I'm not American I would join His Honour and add that it's repellent to everything I believe as an Australian and as a human being. The vast majority of Germans, however, are comfortable living under such a system where the state usurps the role of parents in the education of children. What is expedient for the state trumps the right of parents. In other words, the Vaterland knows best and parents be damned. The only exception to this in Germany is in the very specific area of religious education whereby parents are granted a right under Art 7 of the German Constitution (as I have already mentioned above) but even here the right is limited in that the state gets to say who is a recognised religious community (jediism doesn't count!) and, even assuming a religious community is recognised by the state as a legitimate religion, what persons are qualified to teach religious education (I couldn't for example teach it even if parents were happy to have me teaching it to their children or indeed my church was happy to have to me teach religious education in its name). Germany is a totalitarian country when it comes to the education of children. It really is as simple as that -- there are no two ways about it. The German Vaterland replaces German Eltern (parents) and the German Familie (family) in its decisions about the education of its children: "Deutschland über Eltern".

Like Gerald Warner, I find this kind of statism objectionable and inimical to basic human dignity but when I have tried arguing this position with my German friends (or other statists more generally) most of them struggle to understand the position that parents are the proper educator of children and not the state. A state does not own the children living within its borders. Yes, society has an interest in seeing that children are well educated and will grow up to be conscientious members of society, but that interest does not displace the right (and responsibility) of parents to educate their own children. So of course the state can play a role in education, but it is a mistake to argue that it must, let alone that it must to the exclusion of families. The only authority the state has in the education of children is a derived authority: The right and responsibility of educating children lies with parents and not with the state and in discharging this responsibility parents have a choice of how to educate their children. One possibility is by educating them at home (either the parents themselves acting as teachers or by hiring outside help such as a private tutor). Another option would be to send them to a school (either a state school or a private school). In today's world the vast majority of parents choose to do the latter. When parents do this (or hire a private tutor) they are delegating the education of their children to a third party. That is their right and we should respect that. Importantly, however, parents remain responsible for what their children are taught even when they choose to delegate their child's education to a third party such as a school or a private tutor. Some parents (admittedly a very small minority) will choose to exercise their responsibility of educating their children in a more direct manner by educating them at home. That too is their right and the state should respect that.

Long before there was any such thing as the modern nation-state or state education parents were having children and educating them. And as a Christian I would also contend that the right and responsibility of parents to educate their children is divinely ordained and simply cannot be legitimately usurped by the state. Of course a state can in practice do this, but to do so is to exceed its legitimate authority. A state which compels attendance at one the schools on its approved list, denying parents the possibility of educating their children at home, exceeds its legitimate God-given authority. The state is not omni-competent. And nor are the family or the individual for that matter. God has ordained each to its own end. The state can certainly assist parents in their task of educating their children and parents are free to send their children to state schools (or state-subsidised private schools) if they wish but how children are educated is fundamentally a matter for parents and not the state to decide.

There is a question of principle involved here. What, after all, is the difference between the state schools of the Third Reich and those of modern-day Baden-Württemberg (from whence the Romeikes fled), Tennessee (to which the Romeikes fled), New South Wales (where I was educated) or anywhere else for that matter? That they are not ideologically "neutral" should not be in dispute. The modern Baden-Württemberg or Tennessee or New South Wales state education systems are every bit as ideological as the state education system of Nazi Germany ever was. The difference is, of course, the ideology on which the systems are based. Now obviously modern German schools are not based on an ideology anywhere near as pernicious as Nazism. Please don't misunderstand me on this point. But modern state (whether in Germany or elsewhere) schools are inescapably "ideological"; there is simply no such thing as ideologically "neutral" education. Once we realise this the question becomes one of who decides the underlying ideology of a child's education: Parents or the state?

As a thought experiment consider the following: What if the schools of the Third Reich had offered "religious education" for Christians and Jews and exempted the children of atheists from attending them? Would you say that that education was an acceptable education? Could Christian, Jewish and atheist parents be satisfied with the education their children were getting? I certainly wouldn't. Chance are the religious education classes would be abused by the state and become outlets for Nazi propaganda. As a Christian I would not be confident that my children were being taught the Christian faith I embrace and want them also to embrace. But even if the religious education classes were not an outlet for Nazi ideology, the rest of the curriculum most certainly would be. Children would be subjected to Nazi ideology in their biology classes, their history classes, their economics classes, their German classes and so on and so forth irrespective of what is or isn't taught in the name of "religious education" It's not about whether you offer religious education classes to those parents who want them for their children or exempt from attendance the children of those who do not want them. It's about the entire underlying ideology of the rest of the education. The point is that all education is "ideological" -- not just (so-called) "religious education". What is the underlying ideology in your physics classes or history classes or sex education?

Why should children be subjected to that kind of Nazi ideology in the name of physics or history or sex education or what have you? And why should parents who object to this ideology be forced to have their children subjected to this ideology in the name of those subjects? And if you concede the point that forcing parents to have their children subjected to Nazi ideology by the state is bad then the question arises about other ideologies. What is the difference between forcing parents to send their children to a state school based on Nazi ideology and forcing them to send their children to a different ideology (such as modern aggressively secular politically correct "progressive" multiculti moral relativism)? Is it merely that one is wrong and/or malign while the other is right and/or benign? Here too I would say no. For what it's worth I think both are wrong and malign. But even if I thought modern aggressively secular politically correct "progressive" multiculti moral relativism was right or at least benign I would still say that the state has no business forcing parents to have their children indoctrinated according to this ideology in a state-approved school. Who after all is to say that the prevailing ideology (or value-system if you prefer a less charged word) in state schools (or the available state-approved private schools) is "right" for a child's education? Is it the state? Or the child's parents? That is my point.

Education is not ideologically "neutral" -- and that applies as much to the teaching of history, economics, biology, "sex education" etc as it does to "religious education" -- and I suspect the modern German state knows that all too well. Its stated reason for forcing children to attend one of its approved schools is not to ensure they are receiving adequate instruction but rather to suppress religiously and philosophically motivated "parallel societies". The reason the German state wants a monopoly on education is ultimately to control the world view of individuals. It doesn't want people thinking (too) differently from the official state line on a whole range of issues. When it boils down to it this really isn't that different in principle from clearly totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany (1933-45), communist East Germany, the Soviet Union or modern day North Korea. While it may not be as "hard" a form of totalitarianism as those examples, it is still a form of totalitarianism nonetheless.

Sadly this kind of statism (or "soft" totalitarianism) in education is not restricted to Germany. It is increasingly the common paradigm throughout much of the Western world. Have we learnt nothing from the tragic experiment with various forms of totalitarianism in the twentieth century?