hans möller om vem som äger barnen

För snart en månad sedan publicerade Dagens Nyheter en insändare av Hans Möller, waldorflärare (DN 20 juli 2011). I den hävdar Möller att staten saknar kompetens att ställa krav på de skolor offentliga medel finansierar. Detta skulle följa på argumentet att ‘staten äger inte barnen’. Då kan man förstås fråga sig vem som ‘äger’ barnen.

Experimentlystna föräldrar som glatt och villigt riskerar sitt barns framtid genom att ge det en dålig utbildning? Inkompetenta skolinstitutioner med uselt utbildade lärare?

Eller äger kanske barnen sig själva och därmed en rätt att inte få sin utbildning sabbad av klåpare?

Jag säger inte att waldorfskolorna är inkompetenta klåpare eller föräldrarna okunniga idioter. Det jag säger är att argumentet att staten inte ‘äger’ barnen är fullständigt imbecillt. För vem fasen gör det? Det räcker egentligen att avsluta motargumentationen där, för så dumt är det.

Men Möller har därtill fel när han menar att staten inte ska ställa krav. Det måste den naturligtvis göra. För barnens skull och av den anledning att gemensamma medel alltid ska användas klokt. Det senare gäller inte bara skolan, utan alla skattefinansierade verksamheter.

Men det är klart att kvalitetskrav är ett problem för waldorfskolan. Eleverna kan, t ex, inte klara kunskapskraven. De klarar inte de nationella proven i tredje klass eftersom waldorfskolan dröjer med läs- och skrivinlärning. Eleverna är således inlåsta i waldorfskolan, när de väl börjat där och om de själva saknar den intellektuella kapaciteten att hinna ikapp den ‘vanliga’ skolan på egen hand.

Så mycket för den ‘frihet’ Hans Möller hyllar. Det är i alla fall inte barnets frihet han har för ögonen, tycks det mig. Bara det att tala om äganderätt vad gäller människor, om än omyndiga, ger en antydan om hans syn på frihet. Så varför ska man ta hans rop på frihet från statlig reglering av dessa skolors verksamheter på allvar? Det handlar, syns det mig, mest bara om skolornas rätt att göra som de vill: att underlåta att bibringa barnen kunskap, att anställa outbildade lärare, och så vidare.

3 thoughts on “hans möller om vem som äger barnen

  1. Möller seems to be quite a stupid man. The fact that Möller thinks in terms of ‘ownership’ in relation to children is very troubling. I would find it less troubling if he qualified it by saying that ‘ownership’ does not imply that one can do whatever one wants with what one owns. I would hope that he or any parent or teacher would never say they ‘own’ their children. My children are mine in that I, as their parent, have responsibilty for their well-being, and the wider society also has a responsibility.* The fact that they are ‘my’ children does not mean I can do whatever I like with them.
    It is an indicator of a more developed civilisation when children are seen as having rights of their own.
    I say he is stupid because he has publicly made a statement which as it stands is of dubious morality.
    *There is room for a difference of opinion about what is in the ‘best interests’ of a child but this is a different debate.

  2. What he is saying is that either you think like I do — that parents and schools should be granted full freedom in educational issues — or you believe that the state ‘owns’ the children, which is obviously a nasty notion. And it’s a dishonest way of arguing — it means people who differ with Möller have to defend themselves against beliefs hardly anyone holds. (I would guess very few swedes, and europeans, see children that way in the 21sr centuy.)

    But by arguing like this — one can’t help but asking: if Möller assumes ownership is a factor to be debated at all — and him introducing it is a sign that he might consider it a reasonable question — who does he think owns the children?

    Because if we’re going down that route, I’m not sure it’s any more pleasant to think that educational movements or spiriual movements (and the two mixed together) own children… Waldorf is certainly not alone competing for ‘ownership’ of children, if so… There are scientology schools, fundamentalist christian and muslim schools… et c. And there are people who are more than happy to see children — perhaps in particular girls — as their property. In a more literal sense than Möller might have imagined when he wrote that the state does not own children, inferring that those of us who call for regulation and control over free schools (or rather *all* schools) believe so.

  3. And, yes, what’s best is another debate — and I suppose my opionion would be different from Möller’s. Unsurprisingly. But the question of ‘owning’ is just a meaningless distraction.

    Möller argues, eg, that parents and schools know what’s best. I would say that sometimes they don’t — there are bad schools, and bad schools don’t deserve pupils or public money. But all of this is perfectly possible to discuss without assumptions on ownership.

    Of course parents must make decisions on behalf of their children. But again we don’t need ownership as a foundation (because it’s the wrong one).

    This also makes me wonder: all other sectors of society that are communally financed… should we relinquish control over them? Hand out money, no strings attached, no results required? It would be a disaster and a huge waste. Really — I think the waldorf movement in Swedenhas to come to terms with the fact that waldorf schools are subject to the same rules as other schools. They’ve got used to exemptions, exemptions, exemptions… That they were special. In the end, this can’t go on.

    In my opinion, they need to improve their product instead of underachieving and then stille feeling superior and blaming someone else for failing. Reading and writing is taught fairly late to swedish kids and is tested in third grade (when kids are nine). I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect waldorf to have taught the kids by then. Really not. Kids who don’t learn, by the way, are owned by their own ignorance and limited in their freedom (perhaps not something Möller has considered).

Comments are closed.