Education plans of the governing bodies in Hamburg/Germany
I sent the following email today in response to one of the parent representatives of my son's school class, who wanted to inform and motivate us parents to take a stand on the latest education plans or the comprehensive education concept of the Hamburg Senate. All the other parents in the class received this email at the same time:
"Thank you for sending around the latest info on the education plans and the reactions to them.
My personal position is fully in line with the points mentioned in the PTA press release.
The Parents' Association press release you sent around said the following in critique of the concept from the government:
The school board, the Senate and the Bürgerschaft have categorically rejected an open dialogue on the education plans and the associated ideas for sustainable education until today. Most recently, the school authorities have excluded the students', parents' and teachers' associations from any kind of process, and the majority of the school committee has refused to engage in a dialogue with experts and school stakeholders.
If this represents the actual situation correctly, it seems clear that the political decision-makers do not want any interference here.
Has this been understood unambiguously by all representatives and stakeholders? In other words, has the authority and the concept of the new education plan not been adjusted and changed so far, and not in a single point of criticism? If this is the case, if there have been no improvements or integration of alternative proposals or the deletion of certain measures in a single point, one would have to state that politics seems to be willing to ignore the citizens.
The press release goes on:
Therefore, we once again urge the governing parties, SPD and Greens, to decide on a moratorium and to finally enter into a real dialogue with the Alliance and other actors for the sustainable design of the education plans.
I didn't know what a moratorium was, so I looked it up and found out that it is a "contractually agreed or legally ordered postponement".
The question I have:
To the extent that there is no willingness to talk on the part of the government authorities/representatives, why should the decision of a moratorium/postponement come from THEIR side?
Wouldn't a suspensive measure have to come from outside? That is, from a body that is able to act as an arbitration body or judicial body or for which there is a legal basis?
In other words: Who, if not the people addressed, can also bring about or, if necessary, enforce a moratorium?
Otherwise it would be like asking the person who does not want to see his concept discussed to discuss it anyway or to postpone the introduction, which is apparently also not desired.
The other question would be what a coming together for an extraordinary meeting of the Parents' Council can achieve now that the moratorium is in the air? Shouldn't it already be decided by the Parents' Association or is this meeting for information purposes? I have read the educational concept and also the respective statements and points of criticism of those concerned and involved. I agree with them.
Many greetings"
The Background:
Recently, the educational plans of the city of Hamburg caused a great stir among those directly affected. In an act of special unity (which is seldom enough the case), the respective Hamburg school headmasters, the teachers' representatives, the parents' and the students' representatives submitted their respective professional statements on the latest educational concept and demanded a dialogue or an improvement of the measures and resolutions contained therein.
The new education concept comprises 28 pages of text in the general section alone.
An excerpt:
Teaching and education are based on the values of the Basic Law, the Constitution of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg and the Hamburg School Act. The values anchored there are the basis of our life together and our society. In this respect, value education in the sense of teaching such values, attitudes and ways of acting is part of the school's indispensable educational mandate.
In view of anti-democratic tendencies, increasing diversifications of different cultures and mielieus, strong centrifugal forces and radicalisations in society, it is all the more important to pay special attention to this task of school and education and to orientate teaching and education towards these common values.
I had to type this text by hand because neither the online-version nor the pdf downloaded version allows you to copy passages out of the text without having a password given from the originators of it.
I wonder what motivated this paragraph to emerge. "Anti-democratic tendencies", this is indeed observed, however, this is a government document and the government says about its citizens they tend towards anti-democracy and radicalisation. An exceedingly steep claim.
In fact, the recent behaviour of the government representatives must be described as anti-democratic. Since the unanimous statements of the respective stakeholders (teachers, parents, students, school administrators) did not, as is customary in a democracy, their proper statements, criticism and willingness to make use of the dialogue caused an appropriate reaction, i.e. that the government representatives welcomed such and welcomed the dialogue. As read above in the statement, the school board and the education authority had even rejected any further integration into the processing.
on what reasonable grounds do they reject this?
where is this justification to be read, where can one find a detailed argumentation for this rejection that adequately addresses the criticism?
is it at all legitimate to reject dialogue with citizens?
The main critique in the press release summarized:
The drafts of the Hamburg education plans presented in March 2022 are overloaded with content and reduce learning to an outmoded cramming of knowledge for class tests and exams. Their implementation would turn back the clock in Hamburg schools by promoting "bulimic learning" or "teaching to the test". These drafts do not provide a basis for preparing pupils for the future challenges of society.
They do not provide a basis for achieving the school's goals of potential development, equity and well-being for all students. On the contrary, these draft education plans prevent the necessary education of all Hamburg students.
While none of all the stake holders from the citizens realm were referring to this part of the draft:
Education for Sustainable Development
In the light of the current debate on the depletion of natural resources, the development of rich and poor, climate change and social division, the question of how to shape sustainable development has gained considerable importance. In the face of these major challenges, answers are being discussed at many levels. With its 2030 Agenda and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals set out therein, the United Nations has developed a particularly comprehensive global plan to promote sustainable peace and prosperity and to protect our planet.
The 17 goals touch on almost all policy fields: the establishment of strong state institutions, sustainable economic activity in conjunction with comprehensive climate, environmental and resource protection, good education for all, ensuring a healthy life in conjunction with sustainable consumption, aspects of equality as well as the creation and maintenance of peace and justice.
So far, I haven't gotten into deeper research if there can be found a proper argumentation from the authorities. While this, I assume, would it have been the case, would be already distributed among the channels.
I produced further thoughts on this. But as not make it too long, I would like to know if those kinds of programs where also released in the area where you, dear reader, are located.
I am curious if a moratorium is going to take place.
Would you like to be further informed?
I've written for years now on the fact the governments are increasingly not hiding the idea they believe they own us. Democracy is only used as a cover for them when they turn the heat up to quickly and have to occasionally walk back a position they pushed to hard, biding their time to push it again.
The battle has been at the forefront in the so called education centers where they mold our childrens realities and belief systems. They have increasingly made known here in my country that parents are not to have any say in what they indoctrinate the children in, and to protest is to be castigated and investigated in many instances.
https://wwmt.com/news/local/gop-slams-michigan-dems-for-saying-parents-shouldnt-have-say-in-their-childs-education-republicans-democrats-teachers-school-students-public
https://freebeacon.com/democrats/deja-vu-another-democrat-thinks-parents-shouldnt-have-a-say-in-their-childrens-education/
https://www.wkow.com/townnews/politics/democratic-lawmaker-deletes-tweet-about-parents-right-to-have-a-say-in-kids-education/article_7214f5aa-8ab5-11ec-adbb-07562df9c516.html
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/terry-mcauliffes-war-on-parents/
I could list so many more, but this is one of many areas the governments are telling the so called citizens (in their eyes replace that word with slaves) what they are allowed to do or think or say.
They label everything that opposes their push to own us outright as a threat to democracy, a threat to freedom etc.
The so called first world has been infected with politicians on the take whose real constituents are global money.
Please do keep us informed. I'm curious on the public sentiment of your country and if it will be strong enough to push back this idea the state owns the children and their minds.
I sometimes feel reminded of Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, in which the authorities deposited the plans of the planned space bypass in a musty basement room where citizens could have eventually looked to veto it. LOL
I guess you can call it agenda setting, can't you? The long texts, the many contents, the theoretical overload force people to read through these paradox programmes. In this case, the education programme, most of it is meaningless talk, like automatic chatter about a good and just world, lots of sugar and garnish around the actual messages.
I doubt the authors' reason and interest in their "own" work. Anyone who takes such preachy talk gleefully cannot be in their right mind, I see it as illusory idealising without the authors really realising whose pen they are actually wielding. I suppose invoking the goals of the United Nations even makes them a little proud, since they seem to be relying on a community that is superior to them and that will make the world a better place.
The statements in the text constantly contradict themselves, because if you want "strong state governments", the political participation of individuals or individual groups at local and regional level is not possible. Not only is there no willingness to question this monstrous concept of education, in terms of content it takes away any own discretionary and creative leeway.
It seems to me that those directly affected, school administrators, teachers' associations and trade unions etc., are slowly beginning to realise that they are in danger of becoming superfluous. The sales pitches and advertising "for a better world" seem to be wearing thin. If tests and crammed knowledge determine the degree and grades and teachers themselves can no longer choose work and materials (which they haven't been able to do for a long time), and even the last leeway is taken away from them, they might as well be replaced with computer-animated teachers and henceforth online teaching is done. Which would have the advantage that they never get sick, have no subjective views and can easily be installed in every child's room that has a computer. It's a dumbing down concept. This is what the locals here started to sniff, I guess, they've only touched the tip of it.
Funnily enough, two years ago, I was at great odds with the parent's speaker himself and had a hot debate with him concerning the lockdowns for our children, the testing, the masks. I debated with the teachers, wrote emails to the school head, but it went on and on with the majority of them sticking to the story. Now, it seems, we are for the first time on the same side. So far my mail got no response, I distributed it yesterday. We'll see if everything turns out to be lip service and the depressed give in.
The people may eventually get it that they never will get allowance to disobey. For it is a contradiction in terms.
I could go on and add some more thoughts of a philosophical nature. Because I do not always see things in a bad light, even though many developments seem quite odd and frightening, I like to take also a different perspective. But for now I will leave it.
Thanks for the links. And I appreciate you commenting here. It seems you are left for me to talk to on my blog. LOL :D
I find that to be a shame. You are one of the bright minds I've encountered on block chain. It's rare to find someone complete enough in their self understanding who is able to embrace ignorance as they walk the path.
I also find it a shame my time here at Blurt is drawing to a close most likely. I've been mentioning for some time my need to step back, and I believe the time is coming to stop completely. There is a new tax year coming and I believe it for the best to not add the complication of crypto taxes to my energy going forward after processing my tax return in a few months for this year. It really hasn't been worth the time sink and I would be best shifting that energy into pursuits with more quality.
You can rest assured though that as with when I first came across your account at Hive I'll still likely stalk your comments from a distance appreciating many of your insights, and perhaps even be compelled to comment minus allowing it to be voted for compensation.
Thank you for your appreciation, I gladly accept it. It is always a pleasure to talk to you because you don't always agree with me and I can feel challenged by you without creating hostility. You don't often meet people who take the time to be in dialogue, or you have to look for them. I think we both had quite intense conversations with each other here. Yes, it is obvious that you are withdrawing. I will miss you, but I can understand you well.
I will also post on Hive occasionally, have started again after a very long hiatus, but the topics and energy such takes are not always commensurate with what I hope for in terms of conversations in the comments section. It's not quite easy to achieve a balance in terms of engagement as the expectation on all chains is to be in touch with as many as possible. That's not my thing, I don't hand out upvotes and comments like sliced bread. Joining automatic trails, I'm rather hesitant about that.
That would probably be different if I ran the whole thing like a business.
We will certainly - or hopefully - not lose sight of each other. If you feel like it, we can stay in touch on another channel.
I greet you warmly and it was a pleasure to make your acquaintance.