Photos by Klavdija Hočevar Kastelic

Spotlighting the Issues with ‘Schooling’ in Slovenia
It is necessary to raise awareness about how some countries, such as the Republic of Slovenia, have legislated grammatically incorrect statements, such as, “compulsory schooling” rather than “compulsory education,” which has led to many violations of the Rights of the Child.

Executive Summary: This article covers many points about the complex circumstances regarding homeschooling in Slovenia. It includes:

  • Issues with interpretations and implementations regarding the difference between “education” and “schooling” and how that is affecting families
  • Highlighting organizations that are working to update the view of education to be “lifelong and lifewide”
  • Questioning the corporate nature of the schooling system and if it actually serves the individual students’ interests
  • Advocating for financially supporting families who are prioritizing their children’s rights
  • Questioning the harmful normalization of the negatives of schooling culture, such as bullying, drug use, repeated violations of autonomy, forced socialization and more
  • Highlighting the force that is being used on families to enroll their children in a school system that does not align with their values

The media, thousands of books, political speeches, international organizations, philosophers, websites, people ... They all agree on the importance of education. And more importantly, people are becoming aware that the Resolution from the year 1948, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is a significant document which will line out importantly that there is an everyone’s right of free choice to education (Article 26).

Article 26

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. At the same time, they pledge to support their children as much as possible. The State should provide financial and structural support to the child and family, enabling education for the highest good of the child in accordance with their wishes and interests, as identified by the parents. Additionally, there should be a supportive social and political-structural environment that ensures financing and implements education in a way that supports the child and is not hindered by family legislation. Such an example is Self-Directed Education Centers, which could enable the coordination and implementation of additional services for children according to their needs. Unfortunately, where I live in Slovenia, we are not yet at that stage.

Some countries have implemented, in the legislation on primary education, grammatically incorrect statements. They have legislated “compulsory schooling” rather than “compulsory education,” leading to many violations of the Right of the Child.

What this means in practice can be illustrated with some simple examples:

The parents choose not to enroll him because the representative of the institution cannot guarantee that the content will not harm the child. For instance, they cannot ensure that the child will be able to learn according to his interests or that the curriculum will be planned in advance so the child can become familiar with it.

Suppose the child and the parents prefer that the offspring will be educated in a natural way, guided by the parents through various projects. In that case, they also desire support that would assist families by coordinating activities, offering counseling, and providing other forms of support. The principal then reports the parents for perpetrating violence against their child to the Police station and Center for social work because they do not enroll him in the primary school education system.

Another matter is that it involves processing personal data, for which parents must seek assistance from the system through the Information Commissioner. It should not be taken for granted that someone processes your data without your consent, especially when there are violations of human and children’s rights.

Another practical example is, what if a child lacks interest or aptitude for certain subjects, such as physics or chemistry? Instead of being allowed to work on personally meaningful projects, the student is required to be assessed in subjects they don’t care about, potentially hindering their development. If the assessment is poor, the blame is often placed on the child rather than the compulsory nature of the schooling educational system.

It is important to note here that this means the child was actually unable to devote himself to the subjects he is interested in and would enjoy improving upon during the entire time it was known he was not interested in physics/chemistry. This significantly limits the child’s right to education. And it harms parents’ right to be parents who made a pledge for rights-centric education for their children.

This issue is prevalent in the Republic of Slovenia. Increasingly, this is recognized as a genuine public interest, indicating a substantial portion of the population advocating for self-education, questioning the current educational system, and actively seeking knowledge application due to perceptions of inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and economic unsustainability.

Ms. Farida Shaheed, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, affirmed in her report to the Human Rights Council last year (see below, bolded sections added for emphasis) that it is indeed ‘primary education, not schooling, that is compulsory.’

H. Education should not be reduced to schooling

59. Education should not be reduced to schooling, however. Learning must be recognized regardless of where and how it is achieved. Numerous other spaces, including cultural centers, libraries, families and communities participate in education, and need support. As reported by the International Commission on the Futures of Education, a major task “is to broaden thinking about where and when education takes place, expanding it to more times, spaces and stages of life”, relying on what can be called “educational ecosystems” that connect natural, built and virtual learning sites.75

60. The mandate has long recommended that non-formal education be acknowledged as an important means for realizing the right to education. It can provide “second chance” education to out-of-school children and adult learners by expanding educational opportunities beyond mainstream public school systems, as well as providing multiple other benefits. Within lifelong learning, it is essential to recognize, validate and accredit learning, wherever it may have occurred. As in all forms of education, human rights considerations must be integrated into the design and oversight of non-formal education programmes. Education systems should be reformed to allow for a fluid transition between non-formal and formal programmes.76

61. Under article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it is primary education, not schooling, that is compulsory. Home-schooling may therefore be considered as part of educational freedom, with families retaining the liberty to ensure the education of their children at home. Nevertheless, the same guarantees must apply to the right to education in all dimensions.

The first Slovenian gathering of homeschoolers and advocates of alternative primary education took place in April 2024. This gathering came about when the law was changed in February 2024 that restricted educational choice to a specific State-approved list. We are working to elevate awareness among like-minded individuals, and with the power of love, we aim to propagate these ideas wherever we go. Homeschooling and Self-Directed Education represent opportunities for guardians to fulfill their responsibilities toward their offspring, facilitating a secure familial attachment that satisfies their biological needs.

Previously unrecognized systemic violations of children’s rights and well-being now come to light through international integration, helping us understand the challenges parents face in realizing the principles outlined in the Resolution above.

A close look at the terms is necessary to address the issue of excessive grammatical complexity. One can see below that even though Shaheed distinguished the difference between “schooling” and “education,” the UN still uses the two interchangeably.

The United Nations defines compulsory schooling (synonym – compulsory education) as:

“Compulsory schooling refers to an obligatory period of education that every child is required to complete. The legal age from which children are no longer compelled to attend school (e.g., 15th birthday). The ending age of compulsory schooling is thus different from the ending age of an educational programme.”

They define home-schooling as:

“The education of children at home, typically by parents or guardians, rather than in a public or private school.

Remark: Prior to the introduction of compulsory school attendance laws in the nineteenth century, most childhood education worldwide occurred within the family or community, with only a small portion of the population attending schools or employing tutors. Currently, the majority of children in developed nations receive their formal education at a public institution.

“Homeschooling may refer to instruction in the home under the supervision of correspondence schools or umbrella schools. A curriculum-free philosophy of homeschooling may be called unschooling, a term coined in 1977 by American educator John Holt in his magazine Growing Without Schooling. Source: E: (consulted May 2010).”

With the introduction of new legislation, the terminology has shifted from ‘homeschooling’ to ‘home education.’ However, despite this change in wording, the essence of the educational approach remains unchanged. The curriculum and methodology often do not align with the educational principles outlined in the aforementioned documents. The business model persists, with little regard for the individual student’s preferences or rights. Consequently, children’s rights continue to be disregarded and violated.

In the General Comment No. 11: Plans of Action for Primary Education (Art. 14 of the Covenant) from the year 1999 we can find important explanation of the selected word “compulsory”:

Compulsory. The element of compulsion serves to highlight the fact that neither parents, nor guardians, nor the State are entitled to treat as optional the decision as to whether the child should have access to primary education. Similarly, the prohibition of gender discrimination in access to education, required also by articles 2 and 3 of the Covenant, is further underlined by this requirement. It should be emphasized, however, that the education offered must be adequate in quality, relevant to the child and must promote the realization of the child’s other rights.

It is also crucial that the State, through budget implementation and decision-making, does not engage in discriminatory acts. Unfortunately, such discrimination is occurring in Slovenia regarding children seeking education based on rights-centric education and a self-directed approach.

“States parties have immediate obligations in relation to the right to education, such as the ‘guarantee’ that the right ‘will be exercised without discrimination of any kind’ (art. 2 (2)) and the obligation ‘to take steps’ (art. 2 (1)) towards the full realization of article 13. [20] Such steps must be ‘deliberate, concrete and targeted’ towards the full realization of the right to education.”

The Alliance for Self-Directed Education (ASDE) has a whole page on “What is Self-Directed Education?” Below is an excerpt where they talk about and define education.

“Let’s start with the term education. In many settings, people equate education with schooling, which leads to the idea that education is something that is done to students by teachers and other adults. Teachers educate and students become educated. Teachers give an education and students receive this gift. But any real discussion of education requires us to think much more broadly than schooling.

“Education is a whole-person, whole-life, experiential process.

“Education can be defined in a number of ways. While at some points in history it did most commonly refer to hierarchical and often coercive relationships, there have also been times and places when it referred more to the process of drawing out and developing the capacities presumed to already be present within a student. A useful definition for our purposes as we explore Self-Directed Education is this: Education is the sum of everything a person learns that supports them towards living a satisfying and meaningful life.”

It is also helpful to know the differences between Self-Directed and Progressive Education, as laid out here by Peter Gray, Ph.D.

I see education as the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing reasoning and judgment skills, and preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life. It occurs continuously, within a secure environment, where parents are educated first, fostering circumstances for the child to explore, and providing spiritual, emotional, and material support. The concept of Self-Directed Education has facilitated my comprehension of educational principles in alignment with the Resolution.

See below how the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is working to adapt rights as education evolves. (Bolded sections added for emphasis.)

Lifelong learning entitlements

UNESCO believes that the traditional view of education as aimed at children and young people is outdated. Education is not separate from life but is lifelong and lifewide. With longer life expectancies and a fast-changing world, early learning, technical and vocational education and training and diverse learning pathways are an integral part of education throughout life.

The right to lifelong learning is not an explicit right under international human rights law but was cemented in the right to education vocabulary by [Sustainable Development Goal 4] SDG4, which implores States to ‘promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’ in its headline. It is imperative that the human rights framework be strengthened to ensure equality of opportunities at all levels of education. Governments must prioritize and allocate adequate resources to the lifelong process of learning as well as ensuring that different learning settings and types of learning – formal, non-formal and informal – are better connected. UNESCO works to ensure equality of opportunity by filling the gap in access to learning past formal school age with support for skills training including technology, literacy and decent work and beyond.

International human rights law lays down obligations which States are bound to respect. By becoming parties to international treaties, States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfill human rights. The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfill means that States must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights.

Investments are made in training, buildings, research, programs, and materials such as books and computers, often left unused in the basement due to the push for digital initiatives. Courses are designed and models are altered before children even arrive at school or before parents make the choice of homeschooling, often without certainty if the curriculum aligns with the child’s needs. Money flows into these initiatives, yet parents sign contracts without a clear understanding of what the principal of the school and business offers at any given time. Little to no effort is made to inquire about individual children’s interests before the school year begins, and no personalized offers are provided. How can the needs of each child be met if they’re never consulted or presented with options before enrollment?

To what extent does this “ideal” school support the individual development of its students if there’s no one challenging the system from the outset? Does this educational paradigm genuinely strive to improve children’s quality of life and contribute to community betterment? What is the public interest in this matter? Are there alternative ways that better achieve these goals? When faced with the assertion that “there’s no other option,” one begins to question why and whether this is indeed the case. Such reflections prompt curiosity and a desire for genuine alternatives.

We all desire the happiness of our children, yet how can we achieve this if individual happiness is not prioritized? Our foremost goal should be to ensure that every child feels content, joyful, and nurtured by loving, stress-free parents. From my perspective and recent experiences, I find that the corporate education system does not support my desire to exercise my fundamental right to parent and nurture my child. It fails to facilitate the expression of a child’s will and hinders their personal development and self-discovery. True education should empower children to flourish, allowing them to uncover their inner talents and potentials. This is the provision of an individualized, above-standard education for the offspring and is not comparable to any current method of school education.

I can say that I know of quite a few cases where violence against families has occurred, making it necessary to change the approach to education in the future. As a result, it means to us that we are just embarking on the journey of recognizing the need to become unabashedly proactive guardians in advocating for our offspring. Equally crucial is identifying the essential education required for parents assuming the role of guardians to effectively safeguard their children. We are aware of instances where authorities resort to drastic measures, such as removing children from their parents’ care, judges berating guardians in courtrooms, or involving various professionals, all under the auspices of social work centers, which oversee proceedings from their comfortable offices. These actions occur because parents are advocating for their children’s right to be heard and supported. When individuals operating within corporate fiduciary relationships knowingly engage in such practices, they commit deliberate violations. Evidence indicates systematic breaches of fundamental rights, including the right to be heard and the right to express, etc.

“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” European Court of Human Rights Council of Europe, 1952.

But what is truly occurring? One might assume that those providing social welfare services would support families and, by extension, children in their educational choices as outlined in the Resolution. However, this is not the reality.

In practice, this often entails principals, who serve as providers of schooling activities within schools, unilaterally enrolling all children in primary schools without parental consent. Subsequently, parents find themselves entangled in procedures initiated by the Center for Social Work, leading to non-litigation proceedings in the District Court aimed at curtailing parental rights. Within this legal framework, parents face pressure to accept a court-appointed guardian (known as Guardian ad Litem). Furthermore, there are perplexing interventions by the police and medical professionals who subject parents to suspicious questioning, seeking to portray them as psychologically unfit due to their support of children’s rights and developmental autonomy. Additionally, there’s a specific role played by an inspector, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Education, who imposes fines on parents for failing to enroll their child in the standard curriculum-based primary schooling system. These fines accrue for each day the child remains absent from school. What message does this send to a child embarking on their educational journey? That they will face punishment in life for questioning authority and exercising independent thought? Let’s be candid: do we truly desire a society of unquestioning adults? Why are parents penalized for advocating and fostering their child’s rights to be heard and empowered in their educational choices?

My family, personally, has been sent a statement that said if we did not enroll our child in their school or provide proof that they are enrolled in a similar program, that they would refer the matter to the Center for Social Work, the Police Station, and the Inspectorate of Education of the Republic of Slovenia. The principal is aware that the child is enrolled in a private school and will receive education according to an adapted, above-standard program tailored to their needs, akin to known self-directed learning practices in America. This is because no existing schooling institutional approach can meet the child’s needs and align with our family’s values. The main issue is that the private school is not on the list of approved public schools and therefore considered not acceptable. (The principal was also formally invited to an interview but did not respond to the invitation sent to her work email.)

Principals, or anyone else involved in this issue, should not force an individual to sign a contract without a guaranteed offer.

What exactly do I mean by that? Despite the fact that the person who carries out the action is responsible for the action, it is inhumane for principals to experience pressure and intimidation from the issuer of the instructions, who pays the principals’ salary. In simple terms, this means that the excuse for doing the dirty work of pressuring parents is some verbal or written instruction that is not visible to the parent. This implies that principals in the 21st century are willing to succumb to pressure and perform tasks for payment, even when it’s just an instruction with no legal basis. Why would an individual in the position of a principal commit such an act, which means violating the child’s right to non-violence, even before the child crosses the doorstep of the school institution?

Recently, changes were made to the legislation within our country’s Elementary Schools Act (Article 5). As a result, it is now assumed that primary education is not a matter of free choice. The assumption is that children can only enroll in programs provided and financed by the state from the outset. Despite the country being a signatory to the Resolution, the interpretation of freedom of education at the primary level aligns with legislation emphasizing compulsory schooling. Does this truly reflect the essence of liberal education?

From the recording of the session, it can be understood that Mrs. JANJA ZUPANČIČ (Ministry of Education, as State Secretary) mandates that school students who are educated at home (curriculum based education only and not Self-Directed Education approach) must achieve at least an equivalent educational standard to that provided by the mandatory public elementary school program. Therefore, the amendment introduces individual assessments of knowledge in all subjects. She continues that, “In short, we teach children to learn, to learn and to plan their own learning, to think about their goals and to think about how they will acquire and build on this knowledge.” And further, “If we sum up everything that touches the national knowledge test – the mandatory knowledge test in the 3rd, 6th and 9th grades means regular monitoring and allows us to get students, teachers and the school a feedback system. A child who will have the experience in the 3rd grade will certainly be less stressed, as you often mention, when he will take the test in the 6th and 9th grade, when it will be familiar to him.”

In what way does this go together with the signed commitment via international treaties (where the country is the state party), as well as the Constitution of the country? My question is how does this concept of education align with ensuring that children are taught to learn and organize their learning, especially when they may not initially grasp how a topic relates to their interests and will before engaging with it? How can it be claimed that children’s rights are respected?

Dear reader, as you delve into the subject, remember to begin by reading the Convention on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 17 (2013).

“General comment No. 17 (2013) on the right of the child to rest, leisure, play, recreational activities, cultural life and the arts (art. 31)”

Convention on the Rights of the Child

28. Access to education

Every child has the right to an education. Primary education should be free. Secondary and higher education should be available to every child. Children should be encouraged to go to school to the highest level possible. Discipline in schools should respect children’s rights and never use violence.

29. Aims of education

Children’s education should help them fully develop their personalities, talents and abilities. It should teach them to understand their own rights, and to respect other people’s rights, cultures and differences. It should help them to live peacefully and protect the environment.

Additionally, keep in mind that if there are instances of rights violations, international reporting mechanisms are available. Optional Protocol III (OP3) serves as a complaint mechanism, enabling children to bring forward grievances to the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) if their rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) have been infringed upon. If you want to participate in this regard, you can contact:

The schooling legislation essentially views participants as components within a business model for implementing educational activities. This approach aims to generate a specific quantity of knowledge within a predetermined time frame, whether through traditional classroom instruction or homeschooling adhering to a standardized curriculum (curriculum-based schooling devoid of individualized content). Ultimately, the child is expected to produce knowledge subject to evaluation by an authority figure, irrespective of the child’s agreement with or interpretation of the content.

In line with the teacher’s expectations, the child, acting as a participant, strives to meet certain performance criteria to attain specific grade placements. Instances exist where students face repercussions for failing to meet grade-level expectations, leading to feelings of shame, anger, and peer ridicule. Despite these occurrences being commonplace within our schooling system, should they be considered normal?

Is it really in the public interest to maintain an environment in which students must always listen to a teacher’s assessment of their work and where they have no say in how they are evaluated? For some, being involved in the assessment process could have a positive impact. Perhaps the student is not interested in the topic, but he is forced to master it; otherwise, he is punished with a lower grade.

What does this signify for the students? Does it suggest that they haven’t learned due to an inherent incapacity or simply lack of interest in the subject matter? What causes a student to fail, resulting in lower grades? And what do they learn from this experience? Is it justifiable, and if so, whose interests does it serve?

One could argue that the public may not desire an educational environment where students actively engage in the learning process and are empowered to find solutions. Moreover, they may not wish to encourage students to understand their role within the educational system or foster participants who are internally motivated to manage their own learning according to their interests. I leave these questions for the reader to ponder. However, it is evident that the failure lies not with the learner but with the poorly designed system. Collective efforts to address this issue may fall short unless the primary actor in this process, the student, and their desires are considered.

Here, however, we are already reaching a systemic uncoordinated barrier with the Resolution, which will have to change in the future, if we do not want to co-create a negative social environment for people in our territory. What factors contribute to creating an optimal learning environment for students to thrive and reach their full potential? Well, beyond the Optimizing Conditions laid out by ASDE, in my opinion as a stakeholder of that public interest we should educate ourselves in a way that we become aware of where our money is liquid and what that money is supporting.

If the money I contribute to the treasury supports principals who violate all of the above, then it becomes imperative to pose the right questions to the appropriate authorities. The ultimate objective is to raise awareness that this money, already paid and rightfully ours, is a pivotal factor that often leads to conflicts of interest, as budgetary targets may differ. We must contemplate reallocating budgetary resources to those who are willing to support their child in this manner, thereby demonstrating a serious commitment to reforming the system and ensuring effective budget allocation. Such children require financial support, especially considering that one of the parents often bears the burden of forgoing income to prioritize their child’s education.

However, it’s often argued that individuals have chosen this path and must bear its consequences. While this is true, our decision to respect the child’s right to be heard necessitates that those responsible for distributing and managing funds also provide financial support to those upholding these rights.

Even though some people are becoming aware, it’s time for more people to familiarize themselves with longstanding documents that outline our rights, a realm that was previously unfamiliar to many. Perhaps the globally recognized COVID agenda, characterized by a heightened state of awareness, played a role in this awakening, but there is still a long way to go in understanding how the grammar of the original documents has transferred to the implementation of current structural systems.

We must now question whether children supported in this manner, through Self-Directed Education, experience fewer psychological issues, illnesses, and are less burdensome to society. It’s crucial to precisely identify what serves the public interest: a potentially healthy, contented individual who receives attentive support from a dedicated parent, or individuals who, having endured the school system, continue to struggle, resort to harmful substances, and tragically, some even contemplate or commit suicide. Who is addressing the systemic, covert abuse of children, and why does this issue go unaddressed when the public interest ostensibly prioritizes the well-being of children? Who bears responsibility for this?

The fundamental question always remains: Do you love your child? Listen to your heart and trust your instincts.

I also observe that the term “socialization” is frequently invoked. It’s troubling to witness verbal discrimination occurring in the mainstream media, particularly when it stems from an individual entrusted with the responsibility of implementing the school system in alignment with the Resolution on education.

I envision the role of the principal as one of fostering unity rather than division. However, despite the numerous challenges evident within the school system, this same individual publicly extols it as the sole and optimal method of education, despite its numerous side effects. Yes, schools employ special educators, social workers, and psychologists, but has anyone asked why they are even needed in such an environment? What ailments are arising as a result, and who is conducting the necessary analyses and calculations to quantify their impact on society? What are the long-term repercussions of negative experiences within the school system? We are confronted with these questions weekly, yet they often go disregarded. Why is this? Do we truly prioritize the well-being of our children?

A report by the World Health Organization for the European Region, based on findings from the international Health Behavior at School (HBSC) survey, sheds light on the concerning prevalence of psychoactive substance use among adolescents in Europe, Central Asia, and Canada. This includes alarming trends such as increased alcohol consumption, the rising popularity of electronic cigarettes, and shifting patterns in cannabis use. Could the underlying cause of these trends be attributed to the schooling system, which often overlooks the autonomy and will of the participant in their educational process, contrary to the principles outlined in the Resolution on education?

If the principal, operating within the business model of schooling education, cannot guarantee the prevention of negative socialization, then they should not compel a child to be part of an unsafe environment. Indeed, school shootings seem to be increasingly normalized. And instead of training our children how to secure the classroom during an attack, why aren’t we enabling and encouraging other types of education?

Socialization is often discussed superficially, without delving into its profound implications. It’s essential to recognize that successful socialization isn’t solely dependent on interaction with peers within an educational setting. The emotional well-being of the individual during these interactions is equally significant. When a child’s social experiences result in psychological or physical harm, or when they are restricted from interacting with peers of different ages, it violates their freedom of association. This limitation can confine a student to spending time only with classmates who may not wish to engage with them, thereby impeding their holistic development. What do you think about emphasizing the emotional well-being of the individual during social interactions in educational settings?

Schooling is the only way that exists today at primary level in Slovenia, and maybe also in most of the countries around Europe and it often entails spending an extended period surrounded by peers, which is unique to this phase of life. However, once individuals transition to the workforce or higher education, this immersive peer environment diminishes significantly. This shift prompts a reconsideration of the concept of socialization and raises questions about who bears responsibility for addressing any negative social dynamics within educational institutions. If such issues persist, how can we assert the efficiency and effectiveness of the educational process?

The side effects of schooling, which are observed throughout an individual’s life cycle even later in adulthood, are (often) ignored, and we pretend that these effects are unrelated with early childhood and also the type of education. This is also happening in our school education system, but unfortunately, there aren’t enough experts like Dr. Naomi Fisher, in this case, to report on it more seriously. And if it is not talked about “by experts,” it seems that there is no problem at all. If we talk in the role of caring parents, we quickly fall into the category of “parents who complicate things too much.”

If you seek different results, do not keep repeating the same thing repeatedly.

To what extent do individuals truly require external socialization? If the primary aim is to nurture personal interests, then genuine socialization occurs when individuals engage in activities that captivate their curiosity, inherently fostering self-socialization. Should we confine socialization solely to interactions with classmates in school? Perhaps it’s time to broaden our perspective and consider socialization as the harmonization of one’s inner self, where an internally stable environment serves as the foundation for constructing an external one. This can be facilitated through various means such as connecting with nature through birdsong, walking barefoot on grass, engaging in music and dance, exploring artistic expression, and participating in theatrical performances. These experiences encompass socialization because they allow individuals to engage all senses, fostering positive perceptions and emotions. Consequently, the psyche is spared from resolving confrontational situations that challenge personal autonomy. Reader, what are your thoughts on broadening the definition of socialization to include self-directed activities that align with individual interests?

Every life holds significance. Recognizing the value of each individual life means acknowledging the importance of all lives collectively. It’s crucial to remember that children are born into families, and any disregard for the principles mentioned above amounts to a conscious disruption of the family unit. It is necessary to communicate that everyone bears the consequences of their actions and that these actions also affect others. Therefore, it is important to be aware that conscientious objection is always possible, and you can always make a conscious decision about what action to take against someone who simply wants to educate their child in a way that hasn’t been established in a certain area. This can be seen as an opportunity rather than a danger. Thus you are invited as a reader to consider whether such actions define a family as perpetrating violence against their own child for trying to assert their values in education and whether that aligns with your conscience or not.

The era of shifting responsibilities must come to an end if we aspire to create a future where children are happier and healthier. We must be willing to embrace compassion and empathy instead of adhering strictly to rigid bureaucratic systems. Is this critique or merely an observation of facts? It’s up to everyone to decide. However, if a school principal fails to uphold the fundamental principles outlined in Resolution mentioned above, and if the Ministry hasn’t provided adequate guidance or resources for implementing these principles within their system, including budgetary support, then these are verifiable facts that demand contemplation. We require vigilant and professional critical guardians to ensure integrity.

Can we stop at this and ask with an open mind whether the existing schooling and compulsory schooling actually inhibit education for children?

The system comprises a structured framework delineating diverse roles. At any given moment, individuals possess the agency to choose which role to assume and conscientiously fulfill within the bounds of the legal process. This commitment is formalized through signatures, stamps, and written statements, symbolizing the binding nature of responsibility.

I’m sure if you asked any principal whether they would come to a child’s house and force them at gunpoint to go to school because the Ministry told them to do so, they would surely agree that using such force is unwarranted. Yet, these principals are actually using such force when they call the police, armed with guns, on families who are choosing a different type of education for their children. There are several philosophical and religious betrayal parallels here that seem worth contemplating.

When an official shakes hands with a mother and father and makes a promise, it’s crucial for them to honor that commitment. If they engage in actions that contradict that promise due to a lack of understanding of public responsibility and adherence to oaths, and subsequently forget their pledge, it sends a clear message to parents that the moral and ethical integrity of institutional schooling within the establishment is questionable. Why would any parent choose to enroll their child there that sets such an example of inconsistency and untrustworthiness from early childhood?

They compel you to enroll your child in compulsory schooling education. If you resist this approach, they accuse you of neglecting the child. Consequently, custody is revoked, all without any evidence presented. Does this serve the public interest?!

Resources of other people working on similar goals:

If you enjoyed this article and feel called to give back to ASDE, here are ways you can support our work:

  • Donate money
  • Share our content with others! Click one of the buttons above to easily share on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
  • Consider becoming a Contributor for Tipping Points

Tipping Points Magazine amplifies the diverse voices within the Self-Directed Education movement. The views expressed in our content belong solely to the author(s). The Alliance for Self-Directed Education disclaims responsibility for any interpretation or application of the information provided. Engage in dialogue by reaching out to the author(s) directly.

Asking the right questions...
What is Self-Directed Education?
Building a movement...
About the Alliance for Self-Directed Education
Sharing our stories...
Tipping Points Press