Hi Dave, and other interested readers! I enjoyed working
my way through your
comment, and ended up taking what I wrote out of the "comments" section and
pasting it here in an entry for itself. Thank you for challenging me!
>>I am not the same as your earlier anonymous
critic. I'm a homeschooling dad and a pro-homeschooling blogger who ran across
your site through the WorldNetDaily article. <<
I'm glad to hear that--thank you! It was pretty
interesting to me to see my blog, which is certainly not official and could
easily contain mistakes (and does, at times!) quoted at WorldNetDaily. They
didn't do anything to check on the source (didn't contact me), which makes me
wonder about their other sources, too...
>>I simply wanted to point out that Kraft disavows
the use of his scholarly opinion to justify a critique of the current law.
Claiming that his opinion "supports" that critique is not merely a statement of
fact. This is a subtle point that many non-academics don't grasp: Whereas
scholarly opinions may be more rational and objective than the average
superficial treatment of a subject, they are still just opinions, and the weight
of their persuasiveness is primarily derived from the authoritativeness of the
source. <<
I think I understand what you are saying, but still don't
think that I quoted his "opinion" (such as HIS conclusions drawn from his
research), but just the data of school laws: which laws in which places in which
years, how many children attended school in which places, etc. Of course, he
could have errors, but I'm daring to make the assumption (yes, I know what
"assume" means...) that his research was as accurate as he could make it, or if
anything, could have been biased in the opposite direction of what interested
me. What particularly intrigued me is that the research paper in no way appeared
to intend to "support" homeschooling (and the comments you forwarded me
certainly strengthen that appearance--if anything, Dr. Kraft appears to be quite
against homeschooling!) Arguments from the "other side" that, in my opinion,
support "my side", are often much more convincing to me than arguments from "my
side".
One example: homeschooling parents will tell you from
morning to night, day in and day out, forever and on every webpage about
homeschooling that exists, that homeschooled children are sufficiently, possibly
or even probably better than their public-schooled peers, "socialized." I happen
to have that opinion myself. But when the principal of the school that my
children attended for six months, without being asked and without having any
reason to volunteer her opinion, told me that my daughter, who was in the
principal's class, had laid flat all of her (the principal's) previous opinions
about how isolated and unsocialized homeschooled children must be, I have to
admit that that statement carried more weight with me. It was not to her
advantage to think so and even less so for her to say so.
So if a pro-homeschooler researches and finds that in
year X only X percentage of children actually attended school in Germany,
although there was a law saying that ALL children must attend school, I can't
help but wonder if that researcher only looked for the cases that would support
his/her point, for example only "sampling" the nobility. But when someone wants
to show how long Germany has had a compulsory school attendance law says the
same thing, I'm more likely to believe it, or even think that he may have
purposely looked for evidence of a higher percentage than might have been
reality! Does that make sense?
>>Is that not, in fact, why you are citing his
report rather than simply stating the result of your own research?<<
Perhaps I was citing his report because of the
"authority" it may have carried, being a research paper by a university
professor. But if so, that wasn't intentional: the fact is that finding his
report WAS a result of our own (mainly my husband's, and his opinion does carry
a great deal of weight with me!!) research, in which lots of data was
conveniently in one place. Wikipedia and the like can be extremely misleading,
as can newspaper articles.
There was an article recently (within the last couple of
months) that said that a particular family in Hamburg was believed to be "one of
the last hold-outs" (of homeschooling families) in all Germany!! Considering
that I personally know at least 10 families and trust those families when they
say they know others, I know that that's not true. So other people can choose to
believe me when I say that there are at least, say, 20 families homeschooling in
Germany (I think it's more like at least 500--but I haven't researched it
personally, just believe a friend who has, or at least told me he has), or for
example that a year and a half ago 26 homeschooling families just in our state
received identical letters from the ministry of education, who claimed to
have written to every homeschooling family in our state, yet I knew three
homeschooling families in our state who did NOT receive the letter!! Or they can
try to research it themselves, which could be difficult, considering that, for
example, those three families were, reasonably enough, lying low, and certainly
can't be found with any google or otherwise search!
My husband does have a lot of information from secondary
sources (i.e., via the internet--he hasn't seen any original documents in
person) about when which laws were in place where, and nothing in Dr. Kraft's
report conflicted with the other information. (Perhaps it's also of interest to
someone that my husband enjoys researching his geneology and knows of several
ancestors who were educated at least part of the time at home--in Germany.) What
neither my husband nor I have much of is time--we do have four children, he has
two jobs, and life is very busy. My husband would like to do more research
personally, but simply can't, neither can I. It's 12 minutes past midnight right
now and I'm nursing (feeding, for non-Americans!) my youngest at the moment.
What I still want to know is, why would the results of my
husband's or my own research be more valuable than Dr. Kraft's? Especially since
my husband and I are definitely biased in FAVOR of finding proof that school
attendance was never universally enforced in Germany until 1938!
>>If the conclusion is transparently objective,
surely evidence for it can be found elsewhere.<<
Again, I don't think I cited any of Dr. Kraft's
conclusions: the conclusions were my own. And they definitely were not
objective! :-)
>> If the conclusion requires interpretation, and
all the reputable German scholars are too intimidated to speak up, then you
should submit the topic for analysis by historians from other countries. There
is no shortage of scholars from neighboring countries who love to deconstruct
German legal history and vilify the Nazis. <<
Of course, the current tendency to point out that Germany
is attempting to enforce a law that was instigated by the Nazis doesn't help
much, really. When the Germans hear that, they simply write off the rest of the
discussion, because they don't want to be reminded--OR, they're neo-Nazis and
think that's wonderful anyway! As for the rest of the world, they either see
using phrases like "Nazi law still on the books in Germany" as unnecessary
sensationalism and take the rest of the information with a grain of salt, or
they get all worked up and send a bunch of e-mails, although they don't have any
real evidence. I tried very hard, with my limited time and my limited
information, to present a clearer picture.
>>Personally, I think the conclusion is objectively
attainable. I am persuaded by the distinction between Schulpflicht and
Bildungspflicht. It is quite clear that the modern German authorities are not
concerned with the personal development of any particular child but rather they
are focused on controlling the the location, content, and method of instruction
for all children. If the comparison with the Nazis makes them uncomfortable,
well, too bad. Maybe they should try harder to differentiate themselves from the
Nazis instead of puffing up with righteous indignation.<<
I can only agree whole-heartedly with all of that. So,
are you a "historian from (an)other country" to whom I can "submit the topic for
analysis"? I look forward to hearing about your results!
And now it is 12:34 a.m. and somewhere between one and
four children will be up in seven hours or less, so I'm going to bed. :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment