Even with good intentions one can trigger indignant discussions. So it was in the case of a Waldorf school, which had refused in the past year, the child of a father’s embrace, sits for the AfD in the Berlin house of representatives. The fight made headlines throughout the Federal Republic of Germany.
education Senator Sandra Scheeres (SPD) saw the process in spite of the privilege of private schools, to students according to their own standards, pick and choose, extremely critical: “I think it is very problematic that a child for the political commitment of his parents will be made responsible. It is in the school system so that children can develop into independent personalities.“ The Senator suspected of a breach of the principle of equal treatment.
However, the result of the internal review of the Case by the school administration now shows: the rejection of The now six-year-old girl who is now signed up for a state primary school, was lawful. In the selection of pupils to private schools must take the political disposition of the parents to the criterion. A violation of the discrimination prohibitions in the state’s school law as well as in the General equal treatment act (AGG), informed the school management to the daily mirror on request.
“How are we to go?” it was on the agenda
daily mirror people
Free
, it is the Free Waldorf school in Berlin-Southeast in Treptow, had not made their decision lightly. It is even supposed to have a meeting with the parents. “How do we deal with this when the child of the AfD-politician declared for the school?” it was on the agenda. The negative answer to that was then the end of the year is widely known.
The reason given was that the child could not be taught according to the long-running dispute impartially and without bias. CEO Peter Long said also that in the selection process of a classroom community together that there could be twelve or thirteen years. Parents belonged to.
Previously, had been conducted with the Deputy and his wife in the circle of the teachers quorum in a longer conversation on General political questions, including the attitude of the politician to the same-sex marriage. The Couple believed the place actually safe, since it was the daughter in the connected Waldorf kindergarten care. Usually, the children are preferred by.
Heinz-Peter Meidinger, Chairman of the German teachers ‘ Association, warned at the time, before “custody for children because of the political views of their parents”. A school would need to occur to your students to be neutral and unbiased, without regard to sex, social origin, skin color, sexual orientation, political attitude or Religion. “Everything else is discrimination.” The school overstepping their boundaries and infringing their educational mandate.
However, the lawyers in the administration of education is now to a different judgment. Although the education act stipulates expressly that every young person have the right to a “discrimination-free education”, irrespective of “religious or political opinions”. This provision does not however apply to private schools, which are called in the law of English “schools”.
The AfD speaks of a scandal, and wants the report to check
Also, the nationwide AGG had only “limited application”. Although discrimination on the grounds of the belief are, in principle, prohibited. It was at the private school registration, but to a “mass business” that provides a comprehensive AGG-protection. Prohibited only discrimination based on race or ethnic origin – so, consequently, if a child would have enrolled in school because of his skin color. The recording should “be rejected for reasons of different beliefs”. The rejection of a success only because of the political attitude of the parents of the affected students, was “irrelevant”.
More about
schools in Berlin, child of the AfD-politician rejected Berlin’s Waldorf school in the criticism
Susanne Vieth-Entus
From the AfD had been mentioned in the legal opinion on the case is asked – without any reaction. The AfD group Chairman Georg Pazderski speaks of a “scandal” and announced to the opinion check. “An interpretation does not correspond to our legal point of view, contradicts the principle of equality, and shows the difficult relationship of Parts of the Senate to the basic law.” Such a “perversion of justice” would not tolerate the group.
