the requirement that the state *provide* an education

Stephanie schrieb:
NL wrote:
Stephanie schrieb:
snip
I know this is an incindiary post. I don't mean it literally. I am
trying to kick up some sort of different conversation around
education in this country.
Well, in this country we have the Schulpflicht which means sending you
child to school is not optional, homeschooling/unschooling/etc. is
forbidden.



WOA! Where do you live?

Germany. As far as I know we're the only european country where school
is mandatory (we do have private schools but they have to follow
guidelines and as far as I know certain exams are now "centralized"(?)
in that all schools get the same tests to hand out to students for at
least the Abitur*)

Oh and hey, my apologies to all for that "in this country." Ugly American
and my American-centeric world. Sorry.

Yeah, it's annoying sometimes, but the majority of people here are from
the states, so I can understand where it's coming from.

cu
nicole

* we have 4 types of secondary schools Sonderschule (special needs
schools) Hauptschule (basic, you finish after a total of 9 years of
school including primary school) Realschule ("regular"level, 10 years)
and Gymnasium (higher level, 13 years, but some schools now offer a
condensed version which means 12 years. You have the Abitur when you
finish Gymnasium.)
If you want to go to university you have to finish Gymnasium. For most
jobs you have to have finished Realschule and with Hauptschul or even
only Sonderschul final exams you will most likely never find a really
god job.

"Stephanie" wrote in message
...
WOA! Where do you live?

It's Germany. There are underground homeschooling groups there. I have
learned that families who insist on homeschooling are treated horribly,
sometimes the fathers are accused of keeping their daughters home for ugly
reasons. Not everyone is against the idea, but there's no outrage that there
would be in the US. Homeschooling is either not done there, or you go
underground. Or risk the terrible accusations and having to defend yourself.

I also am hearing that Germany is slowly turning their medical system into
something like the US system, requiring private insurance. I am not sure of
the details but I was told the change is very slow and people aren't seeming
to realize how bad it's going to be when they have to pay for medical
treatment. Nicole, can you enlighten me on this? I heard about it
second-hand so I'm sure I got it wrong.
Marie

In article , Stephanie says...

Tai wrote:
Stephanie wrote:
I am often flummoxed by how much time and energy is put into forcing
kids into school.

I believe providing good, free education for its children is a primary
responsibility of The State, wherever your particular state happens
to be, and the costs for that should come out of the public purse via
taxes leveled at the highest level. (That is, state and federal, not
neighbourhood.) I also believe parents should have the right to
choose to homeschool or pay for private schooling but that state
funding should only be applied to private schools that meet or exceed
the standards of education provided by the state.


I am also flummoxed with the number of children who
come to school not ready to learn. And I don't mean *anything* about
intellectually ready. I mean things like having had an adequate
breakfast with a lunchbox of snack and lunch provided. I mean having
gotten an adequate night's sleep at least mostof the time. I mean
coming to school free of stress from monstorously disfunctional
families.

That is something that varies considerably from community to
community, unfortunately.


In this group, we are selected out to see it less than it may occur
in other places. We are concnerned enough about kids to belong to a
group that discusses the subject. And we are in a somewhat educated
group who would seek out such conversation. But whether or not this
is going on in *our* schools (it sure is in our neighborhood rural
school) it is a big part of the policy force.

I wonder if the burded to provide an education only included its
being offered would change the dynamic? How far do we want to go to
protect children from their crappy parents? How about if the
education was offered but not mandated? If a child is a discipline
problem or a disruptive influence, instead of going through this
weird discipline system that has no teeth (if a student does not
want to be there, then sticking them in detention is no great
deterrent), kick 'em OUT, particularly in the later grades. If the
child comes to school unfed, stinky and dirty, exhausted... send
them home until they are in a state to learn.


Punish him twice, you mean? Once with the bad luck of being born into
a dysfunctional home and the second time by deciding that he doesn't
deserve to be given any extra and compensatory help to mitigate the
first bad roll of the dice? Leaving aside simple human compassion it
still doesn't make sound economic dense for a State to abandon
children who are already in difficult situations.



You do realize that I am not advocating actually doing this, I think? I do
have a sense that helping children with the issues I present would be better
done in a separate venue than where education takes place. I was trying to
rile up some solutions to the issue. But it seems folks think it is ok the
way it is! That's cool too.

Well, I kinda thought that's what you - said ;-)

But, the other venue would be the home. And there, to completely address it,
would need an expanded role for CPS or a new agency of some sort. And I think
the pitfalls of that are worse than the problem.

Other than that, we have education of new mothers, education at doctor's offices
and the like, and things that actually *are* in some way in the purview of the
schools that may be impacted, and that goes back to addressing it in the
schools. Maybe a quick breakfast in the early grades. Dirty faces can be left
alone. But it's an imperfect world.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Stephanie
says...

Tai wrote:
Stephanie wrote:
I am often flummoxed by how much time and energy is put into
forcing kids into school.

I believe providing good, free education for its children is a
primary responsibility of The State, wherever your particular state
happens to be, and the costs for that should come out of the public
purse via taxes leveled at the highest level. (That is, state and
federal, not neighbourhood.) I also believe parents should have the
right to choose to homeschool or pay for private schooling but that
state funding should only be applied to private schools that meet
or exceed the standards of education provided by the state.


I am also flummoxed with the number of children who
come to school not ready to learn. And I don't mean *anything*
about intellectually ready. I mean things like having had an
adequate breakfast with a lunchbox of snack and lunch provided. I
mean having gotten an adequate night's sleep at least mostof the
time. I mean coming to school free of stress from monstorously
disfunctional families.

That is something that varies considerably from community to
community, unfortunately.


In this group, we are selected out to see it less than it may occur
in other places. We are concnerned enough about kids to belong to a
group that discusses the subject. And we are in a somewhat educated
group who would seek out such conversation. But whether or not this
is going on in *our* schools (it sure is in our neighborhood rural
school) it is a big part of the policy force.

I wonder if the burded to provide an education only included its
being offered would change the dynamic? How far do we want to go to
protect children from their crappy parents? How about if the
education was offered but not mandated? If a child is a discipline
problem or a disruptive influence, instead of going through this
weird discipline system that has no teeth (if a student does not
want to be there, then sticking them in detention is no great
deterrent), kick 'em OUT, particularly in the later grades. If the
child comes to school unfed, stinky and dirty, exhausted... send
them home until they are in a state to learn.


Punish him twice, you mean? Once with the bad luck of being born
into a dysfunctional home and the second time by deciding that he
doesn't deserve to be given any extra and compensatory help to
mitigate the first bad roll of the dice? Leaving aside simple human
compassion it still doesn't make sound economic dense for a State
to abandon children who are already in difficult situations.



You do realize that I am not advocating actually doing this, I
think? I do have a sense that helping children with the issues I
present would be better done in a separate venue than where
education takes place. I was trying to rile up some solutions to the
issue. But it seems folks think it is ok the way it is! That's cool
too.

Well, I kinda thought that's what you - said ;-)

But, the other venue would be the home. And there, to completely
address it, would need an expanded role for CPS or a new agency of
some sort. And I think the pitfalls of that are worse than the
problem.

Other than that, we have education of new mothers, education at
doctor's offices and the like, and things that actually *are* in some
way in the purview of the schools that may be impacted, and that goes
back to addressing it in the schools. Maybe a quick breakfast in the
early grades. Dirty faces can be left alone. But it's an imperfect
world.


Absolutely.


Banty

MarieD schrieb:

I also am hearing that Germany is slowly turning their medical system
into something like the US system, requiring private insurance. I am not
sure of the details but I was told the change is very slow and people
aren't seeming to realize how bad it's going to be when they have to pay
for medical treatment. Nicole, can you enlighten me on this? I heard
about it second-hand so I'm sure I got it wrong.

Yes, our health care system is changing. And it's horrible. But there's
not much we can do about it. I can complain and tell my insurance
company and my doctors, but in the end it's up to the politicians and
the health insurance companies and they're only after the money, not
after our health and wellbeing.
Technically we have the right to get a second opinion for treatment, but
this year a bill was passed that doesn't allow doctors to refer us to
the same kind of doctor twice. So, if I get referred to a gynecologist
and he finds a lump and decides I'll have to have surgery I can't to a
different gynecologist for a second opinion without paying the "entrance
fee" of 10€, or if I'm pregnant and feel my gynecologist isn't taking me
serious, I can't go to another gynecologist without paying the "entrance
fee" of 10€.
I don't even want to talk about dental stuff. Our basic health insurance
(which is mandatory) covers amalgam fillings, my dentist doesn't do
amalgam fillings, only plastic, porcelain, gold,... so I have to pay
extra. I'll probably require dental surgery this year (no clue how to
get that done with two kids, but yeah) because the tooth I've had a root
canal and a crown done on has sprouted a cyst which is pretty much
growing unobstructed.. I don't have the money to pay for anything extra,
and the doc practically told me my tooth won't survive the surgery (they
want to cut the tip of the root including the cyst off and then we'll
hope the tooth will survive) so it needs to be pulled and I'll need a
bridge, covering 3 teeth, which my insurance will cover part of and I
have no idea how much it'll cost me and who will pay for the rest
because I can't, but I can also not run around with a missing tooth at 32!
I'll need to get a second opinion on the tooth thing, but that's
difficult because the good dentists are all booked till god knows when.

Anyway, yes, our medical system is changing for the worse. I think most
people figure someone'll still pay for the important stuff and
everything that's not important (like treating a cold, or the flu or
migraines or development delays in children,.....) is not important
enough anyway. Or something...

I'm totally disgusted by the changes, but as I said there's nothing we
can do about it really.

cu
nicole

"NL" wrote in message
...
Yes, our health care system is changing. And it's horrible. But there's
not much we can do about it. I can complain and tell my insurance company
and my doctors, but in the end it's up to the politicians and the health
insurance companies and they're only after the money, not after our health
and wellbeing.

It is bad here in the US, too. I was surprised to hear that Germany was
going down that road! Here, the poor are covered by tax-funded insurance
such as Medicaid, and the wealthy of course don't have a problem affording
care. It's the middle class who have the hardest time affording care. You
can make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but not have enough money
left after paying bills and buying groceries to pay for insurance. Many
doctors won't even see a new patient if they do not have insurance. There
are some doctors and dentists who will sort of let things slip(such as
seeing a patient and not charging the office visit fee), to help some
patients with the cost, and for those instances I have been truely grateful
and I try to pass the goodwill on to others.
Marie

In article ,
"Stephanie" wrote:

I am often flummoxed by how much time and energy is put into forcing kids
into school. I am also flummoxed with the number of children who come to
school not ready to learn. And I don't mean *anything* about intellectually
ready. I mean things like having had an adequate breakfast with a lunchbox
of snack and lunch provided. I mean having gotten an adequate night's sleep
at least mostof the time. I mean coming to school free of stress from
monstorously disfunctional families.

You wonder how the families got that way, certainly, though sometimes it's
obviously related to mental illness, particularly depression and drug abuse.
A friend ofmine who worked in a disadvantaged school said that the kids who
came to school with nothing (no lunch, pencils, bus pass) had parents who
could barely manage their own lives; managing their high school age sons'
lives was outside their capacity.

But how much time and energy IS spent in forcing kids to come to school?

I wonder if the burded to provide an education only included its being
offered would change the dynamic? How far do we want to go to protect
children from their crappy parents? How about if the education was offered
but not mandated? If a child is a discipline problem or a disruptive
influence, instead of going through this weird discipline system that has no
teeth (if a student does not want to be there, then sticking them in
detention is no great deterrent), kick 'em OUT, particularly in the later
grades. If the child comes to school unfed, stinky and dirty, exhausted...
send them home until they are in a state to learn.

I see this has been answered by many other people, but do you people have
Blind Freddy over there? As in, "Blind Freddy could see that failing to try
to educate the children of crappy parents just produces more criminals in the
long run"?

It reminds me an awful lot of the welfare reform that occured a few years
back. I never thought it would happen since people would be in an uproad
about hte kids of these parents who were being dumped from the system. I was
wrong.

Sorry, you'll have to explain this to the foreigners. Didn't know that you
HAD welfare ;-)

I know this is an incindiary post. I don't mean it literally. I am trying to
kick up some sort of different conversation around education in this
country. I *do* however feel that the schools have had to take on more and
more and more of what used to be the place of the parent. And I am not sure
that is a good thing.

Well, it's not good for the teachers or the schools in terms of the resources
needed to address these problems, but the best solution I can think of is:

A specialist agency to look after at-risk families, which will coordinate
information from health & welfare professionals, police, schools so that it
can be shared usefully. Home visits by health professionals, where possible.
Home care for those that need it. After-school care for the kids. Job
training, counselling and life skills courses for the parents.

In Australia there is a reasonable amount of welfare available -- most of the
services I've listed above already exist, and many of them are either free or
low-cost/means-tested. There are two main difficulties: (i) it is assumed
that the adult is competent to manage their own affairs and has the energy,
time and skills to look after their own interests and (ii) while the at-risk
families are often known to a wide number of agencies, the information is not
shared adequately or in a timely way between agencies, let alone states.

The agency I'm thinking of would be able to coordinate services for people who
aren't able to arrange them for themselves -- I honestly think that's our
biggest need here. Part of the difficulty I see is that it is very difficult
to schedule (involuntarily admit for treatment) a mentally ill person in NSW
unless they are an obvious physical danger to themselves or others. There are
a whole group of floridly ill people who are no physical danger to anyone, but
are quite unable to perceive or manage their own interests, to their own
long-term disadvantage.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/

In article ehrebeniuk-3FF3E1.09435826072008@news, Chookie says...



I see this has been answered by many other people, but do you people have
Blind Freddy over there? As in, "Blind Freddy could see that failing to try
to educate the children of crappy parents just produces more criminals in the
long run"?

No we don't have "Blind Freddy". We sure could use "Blind Freddy", though!

So much of the analysis of this kind of thing is ideological over here in the
states. And very short-sighted.

Banty

In article , NL wrote:

On one hand that's a good thing because losing track of a child is very
hard here. If you have a child that's old enough to go to school (6 and
over) you will get a letter informing you about which school your child
is "expected to show up at" and I guess if you don't register at that
school (I'm not sure if we now have a choice, they changed the laws
around that I think, but possibly you can register you child at any
primary school in your district now, anyway..) you get follow up
letters and probably a visit from the Jugendamt (cps) to inform you
about your rights and duties and if you/your child doesn't go to school
you/your child can be forced to do so, if necessary it'll be picked up
by the Police and escorted to school.

And has this improved the life of the bottom decile of the population, for
example? What's generational poverty like in Germany?

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/

In article , Banty
wrote:

I see this has been answered by many other people, but do you people have
Blind Freddy over there? As in, "Blind Freddy could see that failing to try
to educate the children of crappy parents just produces more criminals in
the
long run"?

No we don't have "Blind Freddy". We sure could use "Blind Freddy", though!

So much of the analysis of this kind of thing is ideological over here in the
states. And very short-sighted.

I'd noticed. Not that we're devoid of ideologues here!

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/