|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
Parents in Class, School Attendance as a Duty of Support – Hasselbach Scenario: The Major Conference of School Principals in Saxony-AnhaltSchools may believe they can exclude parents from class at will – but Article 6 of the Basic Law and § 1618 of the Civil Code make it clear: parents are not guests, but legally mandated supporters. Pedagogical concerns? Irrelevant. Whoever ignores the Basic Law ignores reality. 
“… nevertheless, I am very confident that we will overcome the existing challenges together. Thank you for your attention!” concluded Saxony-Anhalt’s Prime Minister Reiner Hasselbach in his speech. However, applause was absent at this conference. The hall was filled to capacity. Principals, mayors, and district administrators, along with their education officers from across the state, had been invited and were present. Götz Bibra took the floor: “Yes, thank you very much to our Prime Minister Reiner Hasselbach. As he already said, we face major challenges. Allow me to briefly introduce myself: My name is Götz Bibra. I am a department head in the Ministry of Education and will attempt to moderate this conference.” The attendees stared at Bibra without reaction. Bibra continued: “At the beginning, I would like to ask, even though much of this has already been submitted in writing, that we once again compile the current problems so that we can engage in lively exchanges of experience and find solutions together. I ask for contributions and for people to come to the microphones. Oh, someone already is. Please, go ahead.” Visibly agitated, Klaus Tauhardt blurted out: “Mr. Prime Minister, your words do not help us. I am the principal of a primary school.” Bibra interrupted: “Could you please tell us your name?” “Tauhardt, with a T,” said Tauhardt, looking forward. However, it seemed no one was taking notes on his name. After a few seconds he continued: “We currently have only 50 percent teacher coverage. Teachers are dropping out one by one. We had a new teacher who took over a first-grade class. She didn’t even survive the first day. She entered the classroom and had, in addition to 27 students, 26 parents present. The parents had their children on their laps. The teacher simply could not cope with that.” Götz Bibra asked: “What exactly happened?” “The teacher wanted to arrange the seating. That was impossible. The parents had all their children on their laps because there was no space. And some parents had decided in advance who their children should sit next to. Not even the seating plan was possible. And whenever the teacher tried to move a child to another seat, a murmur ran through the parents,” explained the principal. Bibra asked: “How did you, as principal, react?” “I could do nothing. The teacher came to me 15 minutes after the first class started and reported sick. She has been out since the beginning of the school year.” Bibra interjected: “Had you informed the teacher that, according to the decree of … um … according to the circular, burnout is no longer recognized as an illness?” “I beg you,” continued Tauhardt, “teachers discuss this with their doctors. If burnout is not recognized as a diagnosis, they just write something else.” Bibra tried to steer the topic away: “I see another contribution there. Please!” A principal stepped up to the microphone: “Hello. My name is Steinburg. I have to agree with Principal Tauhardt. We also had cases where teachers, seeing which parents would be present in class, reported sick even before classes started.” Bibra asked: “Did you also refer to the circular regarding burnout?” “But that does no good!” replied Steinburg. “It’s very inconsistent. For some teachers, almost every child has a parent in class. For others, only a few. And where many parents are present, teachers completely lose it. They claim the parents have coordinated or even conspired.” Bibra asked again: “Who claims that parents coordinated?” Steinburg replied: “I’ve seen things in WhatsApp group chats. Some teachers are being deliberately targeted.” Bibra looked at Prime Minister Hasselbach and wanted to know more: “How do parents want to target certain teachers?” Steinburg said: “Simply by being present. If 25 or 26 pairs of eyes constantly watch the teacher, every word, gesture, and emphasis – that’s stressful.” Bibra asked: “The students’ eyes watching the teachers? Students are supposed to pay attention. That’s good, isn’t it?” “No!” said Steinburg. “The parents’ eyes! You have to experience it! And when teachers suddenly call in sick, we usually can do nothing but hand out worksheets. Teaching is no longer possible. There are no substitute teachers!” Götz Bibra saw another woman at another microphone: “Over there, please!” “Good day, colleagues, district administrators, Mr. Prime Minister. My name is Borgau. I head a secondary school,” began Marie Borgau. “We simply do not have enough space. I have addressed this several times and written to the school office and the district administrator.” Bibra asked: “But you don’t have problems with parents?” Borgau replied: “From the start, we sought dialogue and tried to work with parents. It doesn’t always run perfectly. But we do not let conflicts escalate and always seek conversation immediately. But we do not have enough space for all parents who want to be present in class.” Bibra asked: “But according to the regulation of … um … actually a maximum of three parents are allowed in class. Didn’t you enforce that?” Borgau replied: “Of course I tried. But it’s impossible. Our school has twelve lawsuits pending because of this. One mother even obtained a preliminary injunction in court because the court saw discrimination if a fourth parent was not allowed. After that, the dam naturally broke. The circular decree is useless then.” From another corner of the room, a voice shouted: “Fourteen lawsuits here!” Across the hall it echoed: “Seventeen lawsuits!”, “Nineteen lawsuits!”, “Twenty lawsuits!” as if in an auction, each trying to outdo the other. Borgau continued: “You see, this is unenforceable! And it creates real problems and prevents good cooperation with parents. When will the school be expanded?” Bibra scanned the hall to locate Mario Wallroda. Seeing him, he called: “Mario Wallroda. Your school has already been expanded as a pilot project. Perhaps you can share your positive experiences. Please to the microphone!” Wallroda slowly stood. He clearly did not want to speak, and stepped up to the microphone: “Yes, what can I say? Our school was expanded in terms of capacity. The expansion involved filling half the school grounds with a three-story container building. Originally, class sizes were to be reduced, which would have meant we needed twice as many teachers. I don’t need to explain the teacher situation. The container classrooms are very large so that 30 students plus 30 parents can fit. Walls between two classrooms were removed to create larger rooms. But this does not solve the problems colleagues mentioned. And this is by no means a permanent solution. Some places are already rusting. The floors shake when students move. In autumn and winter, it’s cold; the heating cannot cope. In summer, it’s hot; no air conditioning. With double-sized rooms, teachers must speak louder continuously. Acoustics are poor. It strains the voice, causing teachers to fall ill and need weeks or months of vocal rest. That’s the experience. Positive? I don’t know!” Bibra looked at Prime Minister Hasselbach. He turned on his microphone: “These challenges exist nationwide – teacher shortages and building conditions. We are in talks with the federal government to discuss solutions.” Torsten Kahlwinkel could no longer sit and strode to the next microphone: “Mr. Prime Minister, we need immediate solutions. Discussing means big politics has no plan again.” Bibra intervened to soften the tone: “Could you please state your name?” “Torsten Kahlwinkel, district administrator for six months. I’ve taken on this issue because the situation is no longer sustainable,” he explained. Bibra did not know how to respond, looked aside, and said: “Mr. Prime Minister.” Hasselbach turned on his microphone again: “We are still in the planning stage, assessing which schools need expansion, whether closed schools can be reopened, if they need renovation first, and what it all costs. So far, we estimate 38.3 billion euros in our state. Our goal is to obtain federal funding. But education – as you know – is a state responsibility. We were all quite blindsided by developments in this matter.” Kahlwinkel asked: “How much funding is planned? Our district has six high schools and ten secondary schools, plus 29 primary schools.” Hasselbach added: “Planned is 90 percent funding.” Kahlwinkel was stunned: “Mr. Prime Minister! In our district, 90 percent funding means an additional 143 million euros in local contribution. Many municipalities are under financial supervision. The district itself is financially strained. We lost revenue since the last crisis. We don’t have the money!” Hasselbach tried to calm him: “Municipalities under supervision will receive necessary support from the district.” Kahlwinkel was about to explode: “We – the district and municipalities – do not have the money. We reduced voluntary tasks almost to zero! We are bankrupt! We need 100 percent funding. Why is nothing coming from the state?” Hasselbach turned on his microphone: “We are aware of the special situation and the challenges. The state budget currently does not allow large investments. The state is still recovering from the last crisis. This conference is called to find solutions to move us all forward.” Kahlwinkel asked: “So nothing comes from the state and the districts and municipalities are left alone?!” Götz Bibra tried to salvage the tense situation: “There’s another contribution at the back. Thank you, Mr. Kahlwinkel. Over there, please!” “Good day. My name is Britta Pleismar. I was recently assigned to this matter for our district and wanted to know firsthand why we are in this situation. Parents weren’t present in classes before,” said Britta Pleismar. A murmur ran through the hall, showing many could not fully grasp the reasons for the predicament. Bibra looked at Prime Minister Hasselbach, who showed no reaction. Then Bibra looked at Government Counselor Schimmel: “Our legal expert, Mr. Schimmel, can explain the legal background.” Government Counselor Schimmel had hoped not to speak. Hesitantly, he turned on his microphone and said: “This is a tricky matter.” From the back, someone shouted: “Louder!” “This is a tricky matter! I’ve had the whole situation explained to me. Originally, a child with a disability had the right to participate in inclusive education. Integration assistance was financed by the social services. The parents wanted to use a personal budget and sometimes attended classes themselves. Teachers did not like this. Under pressure from principals and teachers, the responsible social office in Burgenlandkreis, together with the Social Agency in Halle, argued that school attendance is part of parental support duties to deny or cancel the personal budget if parents or relatives are present. They did not want to pay parents or relatives for integration assistance and thus prevent their presence. And this escalated.” Britta Pleismar asked: “So the problem was that a parent of a single child was present in class?” Schimmel confirmed: “Yes.” “What exactly was the problem?” asked Pleismar. Schimmel explained: “It was a legal issue. Social law, as interpreted by the responsible social office and later the Social Agency of Saxony-Anhalt, did not allow parents or relatives to provide paid integration assistance.” Pleismar asked again: “So the child had no integration assistance?” Schimmel replied: “Yes, usually the child did. But the rule was it could not be provided by parents or relatives. Hence, the personal budget was denied and an external provider was used.” Pleismar asked: “Was that cheaper?” Schimmel replied tersely: “Not cheaper. It was more about legal principles.” Pleismar followed up: “And there was no way to interpret the laws differently?” Schimmel said annoyed: “At the time, the authorities saw no alternative but to strictly follow the law, even if laws in other states were interpreted differently.” “Why were such laws enacted in the first place?” asked Pleismar. Schimmel replied hesitantly: “No new laws were enacted. There is the Basic Law, Article 6, and § 1618 BGB, which – as far as I know – was added to the Civil Code in 1980, possibly as part of social law reform to relieve the state of social costs by assigning support duties to parents. These laws have existed for a long time.” “And why must we suddenly follow these laws now if no one cared before?” asked Pleismar. “You know it’s a basic principle of administration to postpone things that administration and politics do not want to implement,” explained Schimmel. “If the administration is unaware of something, that helps. Also, the principle is: no plaintiff, no judge. No one officially knew or was aware of the legal situation, so nothing was done. Once the issue became widely known, this approach was no longer possible because too many parents knew and enforced their rights.” Britta Pleismar thought briefly: “If I summarize correctly, we are here because there was a single child whose parents wanted to provide integration assistance. The social authorities of Burgenlandkreis and Saxony-Anhalt did not want that. It was about principle and preventing parents from being in class. Nothing was saved. Yet it was insisted that school attendance is part of parental support duties. And now we have these problems: teachers are leaving, teaching provision is no longer ensured, and it costs billions that do not exist. But none of the parties foresaw stopping this, overlooking it, and paying parents for integration assistance anyway. Did I understand correctly?” Silence fell. You could hear a pin drop. Schimmel looked to the side to gauge Bibra’s reaction. Bibra stared blankly, paralyzed and flushed red. Schimmel looked at Hasselbach, who stirred his mostly empty coffee cup, occasionally making a clinking sound. Hasselbach drank his coffee black. There was nothing to stir. Schimmel looked forward again, leaned to the microphone, and said: “Yes.” Parental Duty of Support and School AttendanceAttendance at school by a minor child is not solely under the organizational and regulatory authority of the school or the state. It is part of parental responsibility and duty, as directly derived from the Basic Law and the Civil Code.1. Constitutional Basis (Art. 6 GG) Article 6, paragraph 2, sentence 1 of the Basic Law unambiguously states: “The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent upon them.” This provision does not merely establish a defensive right against state interference but a binding duty. Parental responsibility is comprehensive and covers all areas of the child’s life. School attendance is an integral part of upbringing and thus directly covered by Art. 6 GG. The state – including schools – has only a supervisory and supplementary role. A general or blanket exclusion of parental participation or presence in class is not compatible with Art. 6 GG. 2. Civil Law Specification (§ 1618 BGB) Parental duty is further specified in § 1618 BGB, which states: “Parents and children owe each other support and consideration.” The term “support” is intentionally broad. It is neither temporally nor spatially limited. The legislature explicitly refrained from excluding specific areas of life – such as school or class – from the duty of support. It follows that if parents deem it necessary to support their child in the school context, this is part of their legal duty. Attendance in class is a permissible and legally protected form of this support. 3. No Restriction by State Law School laws, regulations, and administrative provisions are state law. Art. 31 GG makes clear: “Federal law breaks state law.” Since Art. 6 GG and § 1618 BGB are federal law, state school regulations cannot restrict or nullify these duties. Rules that generally limit or prohibit parental presence in class are legally irrelevant insofar as they conflict with federally established parental duties. 4. Pedagogical Considerations of the School Pedagogical assessments that parental presence in class is “detrimental” or “harmful” to the child do not take legal precedence over parental rights and duties under Art. 6 GG. Decisions on how parental support is implemented fall primarily to the parents. Only in cases of demonstrable, concrete danger to the child’s welfare may the state intervene. Abstract pedagogical considerations are insufficient. 5. Conclusion School attendance is part of parental care and upbringing duties. Parents are legally obliged under Art. 6 GG and § 1618 BGB to provide support to their children. This duty may include unlimited time presence in class. School or state regulations cannot restrict this duty. The final legal decision on whether and to what extent parents are present in class rests with the parents themselves. Author: AI-Translation - АИИ und Michael Thurm | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | The Future Concerns Us All! Dana Burkhardt and Gabriele Naundorf Are Running for the City Council in Merseburg and the District Council of SaalekreisGabriele Naundorf in Interview. Dana Burkhardt and Gabriele Naundorf are running as independent candidates for the Merseburg City Council and the Saalekreis District Council on 09.... zum Artikel |
 | Great Success! Renaturation of the Leuna-Bitterfeld-Wolfen-Schkopau Chemical Triangle Could Soon Become RealityThe economic and energy policies of previous federal governments are bearing more fruit – more greenery in Germany.... zum Artikel |
 | How the Reichsbürger Coup Might Have UnfoldedThe "Kingdom of Germany" was recently banned. Long legal proceedings are underway against the "Rollator Coup Plotters." But how serious was the actual danger – and how would the ... 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 |