|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
Burgenlandkreis bankrupt? Student transportation not fundedThe Department of Education refuses to finance student transportation and thereby denies support to the parents of a child with school anxiety. An odyssey against the entire bureaucratic apparatus. 
A family's child developed steadily increasing school anxiety and refusal at the Gymnasium in Hohenmölsen before the turn of the year 2022/2023. Stomach aches, other pains, and extreme fatigue were the consequences. The causes included bullying but also significant conflicts with teachers. From early 2023, it became increasingly difficult, eventually impossible, to motivate the child to attend school. Numerous doctor visits followed to clarify whether there were physiological causes. At some point, the Gymnasium noticed the child had many absences. The principal, Mr. Hoffmann, demanded medical certificates for the absence days. The pediatrician refused to issue any, as from her point of view, there were no physiological reasons. The parents tried to find a way for the child to continue receiving education regardless. In April 2023, a meeting took place at the Gymnasium. Present were the father, the class teacher, the deputy class teacher, and later the principal. The father was apparently a bit too demanding toward the principal and voiced criticism. According to the school law, schools are obliged to consider individual learning conditions and provide additional support when needed. The individual learning condition was school anxiety, and the need for support was obvious. The principal closed his laptop and wanted to end the conversation because of the criticism. The father said, "I am here and wanted to find ways for my child to be taught. You want to leave!" The principal then stayed seated. One proposal by the father was to set up a laptop or smartphone with a camera pointed at the blackboard, the teacher would wear a Bluetooth headset to hear what the child says, and the child could hear the teacher. This would have required no investment. Perhaps this could have overcome the school anxiety. This suggestion was ignored. The conversation ended with the decision to involve the school psychological advisor from the State School Office. A second meeting was to be scheduled. Almost five weeks passed before the second meeting took place. Additionally, Mr. Ryl from the State School Office was present. He is responsible for Gymnasiums. The father and Mr. Ryl already knew each other from a meeting several years earlier. Back then, Mr. Ryl said: "If we always stick to the law, we won't get anything done." Remembering this, Mr. Ryl wanted to end the meeting. The principal followed him. The father again referred to the school law and said once more that he would have liked to find ways to realize schooling for his child. The principal explained that he needed medical certificates as a basis for action. Without a medical certificate, there could be no support or assistance for the child. The principal did not explain from which law it follows that support and assistance can only be given if medical certificates are presented. The meeting was ended without results by Mr. Ryl and the principal. Subsequently, the principal continued to demand medical certificates for every absence day and threatened to file a complaint for violation of compulsory schooling. He referred to a circular decree from the State Ministry of Education, according to which principals may demand medical certificates if there are doubts about an illness. He apparently assumed this decree imposed an obligation on parents to submit a medical certificate. However, since this decree addresses principals, it does not obligate parents to anything at first. The father repeatedly asked whether the principal's demand constituted an administrative act from which legal binding force would arise and against which legal remedies could be filed. This question was not answered. The father repeatedly referred to the school law and the duties of the school. He believed that the school acted unlawfully by not fulfilling these duties. The principal wrote that the father should refrain from pointing out these duties defined in the school law. The school year ended without the school or the State School Office providing any support or assistance. There were no proposals from the school or the State School Office on how schooling could take place. The father applied by email, sent to the class teacher, the school psychological advisor, the principal, Mr. Ryl, and the responsible employee for school transfers at the State School Office, for schooling of the child outside the school district, since the Gymnasium obviously had no interest in education or fulfilling the educational mandate. There was no response to this application. None of the five contacted replied. A transfer to the secondary school in Hohenmölsen was ruled out by the parents because former classmates were there, and the risk of bullying existed, which would immediately lead to renewed school refusal. The Youth Welfare Office was involvedThe parents simultaneously received an invitation to a meeting from the Youth Welfare Office of the Burgenlandkreis. According to the Youth Welfare Office, there were problems to be resolved in the family. How the Youth Welfare Office came to this assessment was not communicated. Since an invitation does not obligate, the parents did not attend. A second invitation followed. The Youth Welfare Office became more specific and referred to the absences. The parents did not attend this invitation either. However, the parents wanted access to the files to find out what information the Youth Welfare Office had. The easiest would have been for the Youth Welfare Office to send copies. The Youth Welfare Office refused. File access had to be taken directly at the Youth Welfare Office. There were no other options. Sending the files, copies, or digital versions by email was not possible.The father sent an email to the Youth Welfare Office explaining the situation and asking for support so the school would fulfill its duties and organize education for the child. The Youth Welfare Office sent a third invitation and wrote that if this invitation was not followed, the case would be referred to the family court. Since these were legally completely non-binding invitations—i.e., no summons, hearing, or similar—the father considered this coercion. He filed a supervisory complaint, which he also sent to the legal and regulatory office. The head of the legal and regulatory office, Mr. Hoeckstra, wrote that such supervisory complaints should only be sent to the respective authority, not to the legal and regulatory office. According to this, the legal and regulatory office does not want to know that employees of the district administration fulfill criminal offenses like coercion and have no problem with unlawful actions. The supervisory complaint has so far been completely ignored by the Youth Welfare Office. To get file access, the father made an appointment at the Youth Welfare Office. At this appointment, the employees first made him wait in the stairwell for several minutes. He explained the situation again and asked if the Youth Welfare Office was taking care that the school would arrange schooling for the child. He was told the Youth Welfare Office was not responsible for that. School transfer without parents' consent or informationThe summer holidays were nearing their end. Since there was no response from the Gymnasium, the father asked the principal by email which class the child would enter, as the child had not been promoted to the next grade. The principal replied that the Gymnasium assumed the child had transferred to the secondary school. Former classmates who had already transferred to the secondary school before contacted the child via messenger, saying the child would now transfer there as well. So, many people received information about the school transfer—only the parents and the child were not informed. Neither the secondary school, the Gymnasium, nor the State School Office informed them.The school year started at the Gymnasium, but after a few days, the school refusal resumed. 200 Euro fine for violation of compulsory schoolingAt the same time, the legal and regulatory office wrote that a complaint for violation of compulsory schooling was filed. This came from the principal, who did not want to be reminded of his own unlawful behavior but accused the parents of an administrative offense. The parents wanted access to the files. Unlike the Youth Welfare Office, the legal and regulatory office sent the files. The father requested an oral hearing, to which teachers, the principal, and Mr. Ryl from the State School Office should also be summoned to clarify the facts. The legal and regulatory office wrote that it would not summon these persons; the father should do so himself. According to the law, this authority has an obligation to investigate, but apparently did not want to.An oral hearing followed at the legal and regulatory office, where the father explained the facts again. He also asked whether the office would ensure that the school fulfills its legal duties since, from their point of view, the school’s behavior was unlawful. The employee explained that this unlawful behavior by the school leadership was not an administrative offense and therefore the office was not responsible and would not act. Two weeks later, a fine notice arrived. The legal and regulatory office demanded 200 euros for violation of compulsory schooling. They followed the principal's view. The parents had not submitted medical certificates for the child’s absence days. This was considered a violation of compulsory schooling. An objection was filed against the fine notice and a request to suspend enforcement was made, so the fine did not have to be paid immediately despite the objection. The legal and regulatory office upheld the fine notice and handed it over to the public prosecutor's office to bring the case to court. In the objection, the father stated that the demand for medical certificates did not constitute an administrative act and was therefore legally irrelevant—not to be complied with. Even if it were an administrative act, it would be void because it could not be fulfilled since the pediatrician had not issued medical certificates. He requested an oral hearing, summoning those who should have already been present at the hearing at the legal and regulatory office as witnesses. The district court, without an oral hearing and with the public prosecutor’s consent, revoked the fine notice. The court did not provide reasons. It can be assumed that the court followed the father's view or the effort was perhaps too great for the court. In any case, the fine was thus resolved. Remarkably, none of the parties involved (principal, legal and regulatory office, public prosecutor) had realized that there was no violation of compulsory schooling. The next authority: The Health DepartmentMeanwhile, the Health Department also got involved and invited the family twice for an examination. These were also only invitations, which the parents did not follow because they were not obligated to. An examination at the Health Department would not have brought any new insights.We can’t change the systemIn the meantime, the child obtained a place in the day clinic in Naumburg through the parents’ initiative. The time there lasted three months. The psychologist made an interesting statement: "We can’t change the system!" The goal is therefore to get the child to somehow cope with the system. At the end of the three months, it was considered sensible for the child to transfer to another school in Weißenfels to start fresh there. This had to be applied for twice. The first application was apparently not satisfactory to the State School Office, although it only involved confirming the parents’ data, which was already on file at the Gymnasium. The above-mentioned "transfer" to the secondary level was neither applied for nor wanted, but was a done deal without informing the parents. The transfer to a different school district was made almost into a state act by the State School Office.In January 2024, the decision from the State School Office arrived. The transfer to the new school was approved. The State School Office also tried to indirectly "force" the child to go to school at the Gymnasium. According to the State School Office, the Gymnasium still had to provide schooling for the child, despite the absence of the medical certificates. In contrast, the parents insisted on the change of school, pointing out that a new start at a different school in Weißenfels would be the best option. The burden of proof was shifted to the parents by the State School Office, which had not fulfilled its own obligations. The case continues to this day. The administrative and regulatory hurdles are enormous. There is a large number of authorities involved. Despite these circumstances, the parents are still striving to ensure their child’s right to education. Author: AI-Translation - Charletha Gaptrich | 02.08.2024 |
|
| Other articles: |
 | The Invented Pandemic! – It Was All Fake!Yes, many people just want to close the chapter on the “pandemic” – especially those who went along with it, and those who find it hard to admit they were misled. But more an... zum Artikel |
 | Nancy Faeser's Fantastic Triumph in the Fight Against Anti-Constitutional ForcesIt is a day of joy for all who believe in the unwavering protection of our liberal-democratic constitutional order! The much-loved Federal Minister of the Interior, Nancy Faeser, h... zum Artikel |
 | A Visit to the Mite Cheese Museum in Würchwitz near ZeitzA visit to the Würchwitz Mite Cheese Museum or the Mite Cheese Manufactory showcases a very special way of producing food for tough times, or rather, this highly unique cheese pre... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |