Anlass zu diesem Aufruf ist ein Hinweis, den ich bekam, in Nordrhein-Westfalen sei laut §43(3)SchulG ein Vollzugsbeamter auf Leitungsebene befugt "Schülerinnen und Schüler auf Antrag der Eltern aus wichtigem Grund bis zur Dauer eines Schuljahres vom Unterricht beurlauben oder von der Teilnahme an einzelnen Unter- richts- oder Schulveranstaltungen befreien [zu können]." (Bindestriche im kopierten Original!!)
Hey Gesetzestextwälzer! Damit das sofort klar ist: Schulgesetze fördern Unterwerfung und damit ein versklavendes System (servile system). Schulgesetze sind damit schon im Ansatz gesetzeswidrig in jeglicher Hinsicht, es sei denn, man unterwirft sich freiwillig.
Einen Anwalt fragen? Dank nicht mal dran. Einen gewöhnlichen Anwalt braucht man sich da im ersten Schritt nicht besorgen. Der ist schon unterworfen. Vielleicht besser einen Psychater, um sich nicht allein und direkt der eigenen Wahrheit zu stellen.
Bevor nun jemand weitere Gesetzestexte wälzt, ziehe ich es vor, klar und deutlich zu empfehlen, erst nach einem Schulleiter zu schauen, der zu Ungehorsam bereit ist[1] und mir dann von ihr (oder ihm) diese Gesetzestexte zeigen zu lassen, die relevant sein können, um einen "Antrag" auf irgendetwas zu stellen.
"aus wichtigem Grund"!
Das ist der Fallstrick hier. Ein wichtiger Grund kann sein, die Kreativität eines Kindes zu retten! (und damit dessen Eigenständigkeit; was ja Ziel der "Beschulung" ist, oder? Dass ich nicht lache!!) Doch wer, der im Unterrichtsvollzug tätig ist (egal wo!), würde das auch nur im entferntesten annehmen geschweige denn zugeben, ohne seine eigene Tätigkeit insgeheim oder gar offen in Frage zu stellen?
Unten zitiere ich einen solchen Vollzugsbeamten, veröffentlicht 1991 im Wall Street Journal.
Ansonsten ist ein direktes Umgehen des oben genannten Problems mittels eigenem zivilem(!) Ungehorsam m. E. bereits genug und falsche Aufmerksamkeit schädlich. Zivil kann viel heißen, doch es schließt offene Konflikte kategorisch aus! Ob es nun heißt, Ja zu sagen und Nein zu tun, oder gar auszuwandern. In Anbetracht des servilen Problems ist jedes zivile Mittel m. E. angemessen.
I quit, I think
by John T. Gatto
I’ve taught public school for 26 years but I just can’t do it anymore. For years I asked the local school board and superintendent to let me teach a curriculum that doesn’t hurt kids, but they had other fish to fry. So I’m going to quit, I think.
I’ve come slowly to understand what it is I really teach: A curriculum of confusion, class position, arbitrary justice, vulgarity, rudeness, disrespect for privacy, indifference to quality, and utter dependency. I teach how to fit into a world I don’t want to live in.
I just can’t do it anymore. I can’t train children to wait to be told what to do; I can’t train people to drop what they are doing when a bell sounds; I can’t persuade children to feel some justice in their class placement when there isn’t any, and I can’t persuade children to believe teachers have valuable secrets they can acquire by becoming our disciples. That isn’t true.
Government schooling is the most radical adventure in history. It kills the family by monopolizing the best times of childhood and by teaching disrespect for home and parents.
An exaggeration? Hardly. Parents aren’t meant to participate in our form of schooling, rhetoric to the contrary. My orders as schoolteacher are to make children fit an animal training system, not to help each find his or her personal path.
The whole blueprint of school procedure is Egyptian, not Greek or Roman. It grows from the faith that human value is a scarce thing, represented symbolically by the narrow peak of a pyramid.
That idea passed into American history through the Puritans. It found its “scientific” presentation in the bell curve, along which talent supposedly apportions itself by some Iron Law of biology.
It’s a religious idea and school is its church. New York City hires me to be a priest. I offer rituals to keep heresy at bay. I provide documentation to justify the heavenly pyramid.
Socrates foresaw that if teaching became a formal profession something like this would happen. Professional interest is best served by making what is easy to do seem hard; by subordinating laity to priesthood. School has become too vital a jobs project, contract-giver and protector of the social order to allow itself to be “re-formed.” It has political allies to guard its marches.
That’s why reforms come and go-without changing much. Even reformers can’t imagine school much different.
David learns to read at age four; Rachel, at age nine: In normal development, when both are 13, you can’t tell which one learned first — the five-year spread means nothing at all. But in school I will label Rachel “learning disabled” and slow David down a bit, too.
For a paycheck, I adjust David to depend on me to tell him when to go and stop. He won’t outgrow that dependency. I identify Rachel as discount merchandise, “special education.” After a few months she’ll be locked into her place forever.
In 26 years of teaching rich kids and poor, I almost never met a “learning disabled” child; hardly every met a “gifted and talented” one, either. Like all school categories, these are sacred myths, created by the human imagination. They derive from questionable values we never examine because they preserve the temple of schooling.
That’s the secret behind short-answer tests, bells, uniform time blocks, age grading, standardization, and all the rest of the school religion punishing our nation.
There isn’t a right way to become educated; there are as many ways as fingerprints. We don’t need state-certified teachers to make education happen–that probably guarantees it won’t.
How much more evidence is necessary? Good schools don’t need more money or a longer year; they need real free-market choices, variety that speaks to every need and runs risks. We don’t need a national curriculum, or national testing either. Both initiatives arise from ignorance of how people learn, or deliberate indifference to it.
I can’t teach this way any longer. If you hear of a job where I don’t have to hurt kids to make a living, let me know. Come fall I’ll be looking for work, I think.
John Taylor Gatto wrote this article in early 1991, published by The Wall Street Journal on July 25th, 1991. Gatto was a New York State Teacher of the Year. As an advocate for school reform, Gatto’s books include Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, the Underground History of American Education and Weapons of Mass Instruction.
The image is from another article about John Gatto that is already on steamit. [2]
[1] das erinnert mich an John Gattos Hinweis auf dieses Ungehorsamkeits-Gen, siehe https://steemit.com/education/@tonyamme/erziehungswissenschaft
[2] https://steemit.com/dtube/@falling8/k5yb8lyx