Homeschooling - German Police Storm Home, Take Children By Force

[Willow]

I completely disagree that granting a family who feels they're being oppressed asylum has anything to do with the US sticking it's nose in anyone else's business. The old adage, "if you don't like it, leave." That's all they were trying to do. The US wasn't trying to change another country. They weren't telling anyone what to do. They simply granted freedom to a family who.wanted to raise their children their own way. That's been done for how long now?? Save for the Native Americans it's exactly how we ALL got here.

Syria is sticking the US nose is. This most definitely is NOT, at least no more than it's sticking our nose in Mexico's business as we grant asylum and citizenship to the millions of Mexicans who come here illegally is.


Eta...who are we to judge why they chose the US over another country in the EU?? Is it really any of our business if it's easier for them to stay over there or come here?? I'm sure they had their reasons just as anyone that immigrated here did.

[AmyLeigh]

But, but, this case has nothing to do with Obama. :confused: The family was granted asylum and then lost asylum based on appeals. I don't think that they should have never been granted asylum in the first place - as they don't even meet the legal criteria. This case is not about homeschooling in the US. I think if someone wants to make a case for homeschooling or school vouchers then they need to find another "poster child."
If I recall correctly the article Laurel posted pointed out that the family can go to any other nation in the EU that allows homeschooling to live. It certainly would be much closer to their home/family then the US.
I imagine the majority of Germans are happy with the system that they have voted in place and probably wonder why the Americans have to stick their noses in yet another countries business

This case is really not about homeschooling. It's about religion. I knew that the minute I saw that HSLDA was involved. The Roimekes chose to break the mandatory education law and said that it was religious persecution when the government enforced the law. That was the reason they were granted asylum in the first place.
Now, I am a die-hard homeschooler and a religious person, but I think this is ridiculous. I understand the family's concerns. I would not be happy about some of those things, either. But, if a religious American parent illegally keeps their child out of school because they do not like their child being taught evolution or other things that do not match their personal belief system, then they will have to face the consequences of breaking the law. Why should it be any different for a German family?

[Play Care]

I completely disagree that granting a family who feels they're being oppressed asylum has anything to do with the US sticking it's nose in anyone else's business. The old adage, "if you don't like it, leave." That's all they were trying to do. The US wasn't trying to change another country. They weren't telling anyone what to do. They simply granted freedom to a family who.wanted to raise their children their own way. That's been done for how long now?? Save for the Native Americans it's exactly how we ALL got here.

Syria is sticking the US nose is. This most definitely is NOT, at least no more than it's sticking our nose in Mexico's business as we grant asylum and citizenship to the millions of Mexicans who come here illegally is.


Eta...who are we to judge why they chose the US over another country in the EU?? Is it really any of our business if it's easier for them to stay over there or come here?? I'm sure they had their reasons just as anyone that immigrated here did.

It is our business because they have made it so by going though our judicial system so they can stay. They had options that wouldn't have cost tax payers a cent. The bottom line is we have laws about what merits asylum, and a judge has ruled they don't meet those. If they wanted to immigrate they could have applied (and probably would have been approved) to enter the country without all this brouhaha. They *chose* to make it political. This type of thing can cause international incidents (Elian Gonzalez comes to mind) though I doubt in this case the Germans want them back.

The main point is at the end of the day this isn't about homeschooling in the US. I'm sure there are probably many American families who are getting screwed over by homeschooling or voucher laws who would make a better "face" for the need for reforms.

[Willow]

This case is really not about homeschooling. It's about religion. I knew that the minute I saw that HSLDA was involved. The Roimekes chose to break the mandatory education law and said that it was religious persecution when the government enforced the law. That was the reason they were granted asylum in the first place.
Now, I am a die-hard homeschooler and a religious person, but I think this is ridiculous. I understand the family's concerns. I would not be happy about some of those things, either. But, if a religious American parent illegally keeps their child out of school because they do not like their child being taught evolution or other things that do not match their personal belief system, then they will have to face the consequences of breaking the law. Why should it be any different for a German family?

I don't understand.....

There are loads of Amish who live all around me. None of them attend public or private school. They gather at a single school house, all ages together, and go until they are either married off or it's decided they need to start working. Most don't go beyond the age of 13/14 and I know for a fact there are no government imposed standards being met.

I'm curious how that is any different than what the Roimeke family was seeking.

I wasn't aware there was an "illegal" way to homeschool your children when religious beliefs are involved.

[AmyLeigh]

The US wasn't trying to change another country. They weren't telling anyone what to do. They simply granted freedom to a family who.wanted to raise their children their own way.

Maybe the US isn't, but HSLDA is. They have been fighting with Germany's homeschooling laws for years. There are other cases of people refusing to obey the law and subsequently having their children removed listed on the HSLDA international website. Remember, these are the lawyers that are representing the Roimeke's case. They are trying to set a precedence that if the US recognizes homeschooling as a religious/human rights issue, then German laws will have to change regarding education.

[AmyLeigh]

I don't understand.....

There are loads of Amish who live all around me. None of them attend public or private school. They gather at a single school house, all ages together, and go until they are either married off or it's decided they need to start working. Most don't go beyond the age of 13/14 and I know for a fact there are no government imposed standards being met.

I'm curious how that is any different than what the Roimeke family was seeking.

I wasn't aware there was an "illegal" way to homeschool your children when religious beliefs are involved.

Yes there is a legal and illegal way to homeschool. If I did not fill out the appropriate paperwork for the state, then my children would be considered truant, can be removed from my care on the basis of educational neglect, and I can face jail time. This happened in my town last year to one woman. Only in her case, she wasn't homeschooling, she just was to high to take her kids to school. But, she cannot say that she kept them out of school for religious reasons and then "poof" the charges are gone. The children were truant under legal definition.
Each state has it's own requirements of homeschoolers. Some are as easy as filling out an intent form, others require quarterly portfolios and mandate annual testing. It just depends where you live.

If the Amish are meeting in a school house and are being educated, then in a sense, they are in a private school. Under California State Law, my children are in a private school being held in my house.

[Heidi]

Whomever voted against school vouchers, I would like to know the reasoning? I can't think of why it would be a bad idea.

I did!

Because it is a "pool" of money that is given to ANY parent who wants it (not income based); sort of a lottery system.

So, rich parents who want to send their children to private schools (or religious schools where teachers are not expected to be certified), who are savvy enough to know to get on the list; can send their children to private school on the government's dollar, while the public schools get less and less funding.

Milwaukee is an area where that is a particular issue. It means less and less money to the inner-city schools that need it most, while the rich people can send their children to private schools.

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/school_vouchers.htm

In WI, anyone can get in the voucher-lotto. There is no income test. I am not sure how other state's handle it.

I think competition amongst schools would be great. Like any "customer service", competition should make schools aspire to be better. However, if you take away their funding, and they are continually having to cut positions, courses, and programs, they can't realistically compete.

I also believe that we should put more money into education and raise standards for teachers in return. Well-paid teachers with master's degrees and more control in their own classrooms (ala' Finland), and smaller class sizes, please. I'm not talking about standardization. Get rid of "no child left behind" and "race to the top". Get highly educated teachers and let them do their job.

[Blackcat31]

I did!

Because it is a "pool" of money that is given to ANY parent who wants it (not income based); sort of a lottery system.

So, rich parents who want to send their children to private schools (or religious schools where teachers are not expected to be certified), who are savvy enough to know to get on the list; can send their children to private school on the government's dollar, while the public schools get less and less funding.

Milwaukee is an area where that is a particular issue. It means less and less money to the inner-city schools that need it most, while the rich people can send their children to private schools.

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/school_vouchers.htm

In WI, anyone can get in the voucher-lotto. There is no income test. I am not sure how other state's handle it.

I think competition amongst schools would be great. Like any "customer service", competition should make schools aspire to be better. However, if you take away their funding, and they are continually having to cut positions, courses, and programs, they can't realistically compete.

I also believe that we should put more money into education and raise standards for teachers in return. Well-paid teachers with master's degrees and more control in their own classrooms (ala' Finland), and smaller class sizes, please. I'm not talking about standardization. Get rid of "no child left behind" and "race to the top". Get highly educated teachers and let them do their job.

I just happen to read this article this morning about Wisconsin's school voucher system....

"If you look closely, you can see the social fabric of America beginning to unravel. Private school vouchers permit us to fear one another, to surround ourselves with those who look and think like we do, and — in so doing — to abandon our commitment to pluralism and diversity.

The whole voucher agenda has been exposed for the scam it really is."

Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/opinion...#ixzz2dx7rSFkI

[Play Care]

I did!

Because it is a "pool" of money that is given to ANY parent who wants it (not income based); sort of a lottery system.

So, rich parents who want to send their children to private schools (or religious schools where teachers are not expected to be certified), who are savvy enough to know to get on the list; can send their children to private school on the government's dollar, while the public schools get less and less funding.

Milwaukee is an area where that is a particular issue. It means less and less money to the inner-city schools that need it most, while the rich people can send their children to private schools.

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/school_vouchers.htm

In WI, anyone can get in the voucher-lotto. There is no income test. I am not sure how other state's handle it.

I think competition amongst schools would be great. Like any "customer service", competition should make schools aspire to be better. However, if you take away their funding, and they are continually having to cut positions, courses, and programs, they can't realistically compete.

I also believe that we should put more money into education and raise standards for teachers in return. Well-paid teachers with master's degrees and more control in their own classrooms (ala' Finland), and smaller class sizes, please. I'm not talking about standardization. Get rid of "no child left behind" and "race to the top". Get highly educated teachers and let them do their job.

[Heidi]

I just happen to read this article this morning about Wisconsin's school voucher system....

"If you look closely, you can see the social fabric of America beginning to unravel. Private school vouchers permit us to fear one another, to surround ourselves with those who look and think like we do, and — in so doing — to abandon our commitment to pluralism and diversity.

The whole voucher agenda has been exposed for the scam it really is."

Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/opinion...#ixzz2dx7rSFkI

Weird thing is, that seems to be the German and Sweden's justification for banning homeschooling. I am pro homeschooling, but against school vouchers as they are set up here in WI. In my little world, vouchers would be fine; as long as private school teachers met the same standards as public school teachers, and possibly there would be an income limit for getting them.

[Laurel]

Fine, I was the other 'No' on vouchers vote.

I didn't come forward sooner as I didn't really want to get into a long discussion and have to look up and cite references, etc. but I spent a lot of the weekend doing it anyway so why not? ::

My reasons are the same as Heidi's but I also have another reason. I feel this is a violation of Church/State issues and I personally feel it SHOULD be unconstitutional.

My weekend research told me that vouchers were used in Columbus, Ohio and other places. It went to the Supreme Court of the U.S. in the Columbus case and they ruled it was not a violation of church/state although I very much disagree. Their reasoning was that they gave the money directly to the parents rather than to the schools so it was not the government supporting religion. (Give me a break Supreme Court! )

I learned a lot more but generally there was also a big abuse of the system in some places where it was tried. All kinds of things like students who were already in private schools using it to supplement their tuition (50% of the recipients in one case), people starting 'schools' that were substandard just to collect the money from students, etc.

Btw, I found out that in my own state it is going on now (Florida). I had no idea but then my kids have kids so I'm not school saavy anymore.

Here is a link from the NEA that doesn't support it either for various reasons.

http://www.nea.org/home/19267.htm

http://www.nea.org/home/16970.htm

Laurel

[sleepinghart]

~To Blackcat31: ..I had forgotten about this, and I apologize for being a bit OT, but with regard to the quotes and quoting- thank you, thank you, thank you so muchhappyface! ...Reckon where the '[QUOTE=Laurels' & such are going, ? ~Once again, thank you...Big helplovethis!